ICR Sues Texas

I assume that by "unobserved event" you mean an event with eyewitnesses. But eyewitnesses are not necessary to know an event happened. Events leave evidence behind. Everyone, creationists included, infers events from observations of indirect evidence like this all the time. For example, you can't see the bullets hit the target at a rifle range, but you can infer where the bullets hit by looking at the holes in the target. Lots of people save these targets and can still prove their marksmanship years later.--Percy

Are you alleging that ICR does not do observation research, experiment and has no science methodology to develop an ever improving understand of the universe?Why must creationist ID scholastically accredited scientists conform to a naturalist only form of science in order to be considered for creditaion?Admittedly, accreditation to ID institutions will limit the graduates in finding jobs, but there are a number of employers who would rather hire ID scientists and educators over secularist evolutionist ones.Why can't Texas allow creditation based on the science premises of both naturalistic and ID science premises so long as they meet reasonable academic standards?Admittedly also, I would be very surprised if ICR wins the law suit.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Exactly. ICR cannot do science as long as the begin with an assumption that the Bible is factually correct.

---

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

I'm quite sure that those employers will be able to identify those that they want to hire, with out any reliance on state accreditation. There is no such thing as "ID science."

Because that's how science works!You can call the religion you practice anything you want, but when you try to pass it off as science when it is the exact opposite of science don't be surprised when real scientists call you on it.As has been pointed out, when you have an a priori mandate that your "science" must conform to the bible, it is not science. It has taken the exact opposite approach than is found in the scientific method, where the data determines the direction.To pass creation "science" and ID off as real science, when both must adhere to biblical belief, is to promote a lie.

---

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

For example?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

All of the Avoidance Schools.

---

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

DB writes:First let me apologize to Dr A, considering this is his thread, that had slipped my mind. Sorry A.BCIts the same evidence you use to establish an immediate, demonstratable, observable fact, without knowing the source of the measurements you are observing.You observe data and draw tenative immediate conclusions about A PART of a process, the rest of which, including its intiation are not available to yourselfDesign operates in theexact same way, when it observes data to witness its independent and colabrative cooperation with other organisms, its order and laws operating in a logical and consistent fashion, to accomplish a purpose.None of which is determined by its initiation process, nor does that to be expalined for it to be a consistent evaluation of data in the exact same way evo draws its conclusionsGetting to that evidence is an adventure in YOURSELF. lets see if you can see a point that you do not now understand. Lets see if you can see consistency or inconsistency in the application of evidence.The technical verbage created by scientist in the form of the scientific model, blocks up an otherwise clear pipe. the verbage it employs and its over application does not even let it see the inconsistency in itself.evolutionist advise us that evolution is a demonstratable fact. Regardless of the word play, they mean to imply that the entire process happened, as they say it did and they consider it a fact, demonstratable by what they consider evidence to that affect.For that to be true, it requires them to accept as fact, things they did not observe, that is the entire process completely. So thier "evidence", includes the unobservable, the unknowable.If design is allowed and afforded the same courtesy as evidence, then all that is needed is the order and laws which it obeys, to be considered as evidenceAt this point the evo usually retorts, but we didnt see him doing anything or how does he affect change. in otherwords they require out of us something they do not require for themselvesEvo assumes that its initiation is not required to understand its process, which is true. But claiming that it requires no initiation requirements or an initiator, steps across the line of what they require of othersThus the rules for evidence are different. If no initiator is required for evo, i dont need to produce a designer, to know that design is excally that , designwhether by fiat or evo, the design is clearNo person, scientist or scientific method decides what evidence is or is not. Reality and logic assign that definition. Without all the verbage offered by the Model, logic would dictate that one cannot assert as absolute fact that which they had not observedthey are forced to admit that thier estimations and evalustions are based on limited and tenative information. design follows the exact same rule of evidenceBut for all that IS REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE, THAT INFORMATION, derived from limited data, seems to be accurate, in both cases. That is, the ACCURATE and CONSISTENT application of evidence as reality dictates evidence, allows both of the process to be valid atleast tenativelyNeither PROCESS of EVALUATION in design or evo is inacccurate or invalid, IF consistency is observed in its applicationHence design is "scientific", if we wish to throw a shallow word such as that, at realityReality and logic trumps science in a search and definition of EVIDENCE, because science is a relative word to begin withDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Religion is not necessary to demonstrate design, if design is afforded the same rules of evidence it allows for itselfAll that is required is consistency in evaluation and consistency in the conclusions drawn from that date, smattered with logicDawn Bertot

No it isn't. First you have to supply some, then create a hypothesis as to its meaning, test, evaluate, draw a conclusion, publish it and have it peer reviewed, the same as any other postulate. That is what is not being done.Again I ask, so then what is evidence of design, not appearance of design, but actual design.

---

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

Where do you think ID came from?Did it come from the science world, spurred by the failure of existing theories to explain the data?Or was it born from the ashes of creation "science" after the U.S. Supreme Court's Edwards decision in the late 1980s? You remember that decision, do you? It ruled that creation "science" was creationism and had no place in the school systems.The evidence presented at the Dover trial showed that ID clearly evolved from creation "science" in an effort to sneak creationism back into the school systems.There is no science inherent to ID; rather, it is another disingenuous attempt on the part of creationists to pretend to do science, and to fool the unwitting (especially school boards). And, like creation "science" before it, ID has failed.You don't believe this? Read the Dover decision. It can be found here.

---

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

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.

If i didnt know better, i would think you were talking down to me, thats funny.Now given your statement above about evidence, think in terms of what evo ascribes to itself, then turns right around denounces in design.Secondly, in your illustration above the shooter is the initiator of the action to begin with, thus no need to ask how the bullets got there to beginwithBe right backDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I did supply it, it is the obvious interaction of its parts, working harmoniously and in order and operation to accomplish a specific purpose.That is teastable, measurable and evaluatable. My conclusion that you desire is that this is design, others have reviewed it ten trillion times and come to the conclusion that it is a correct postulate.besides this you ignore that even though evolution proclaims to need no intiator, evidence would demand that you also, demonstrate that, even the evo process was NOT designed by a designer to operate in that fashion in the first place I just did, all you need to do from an evidence standpoint is demonstrate why our evaluation process is different than yoursYou couldnt do this if you wanted toDawn Bertot

I dont know where the entire idea of ID came from but DESIGN comes from Reality and Logic. design does not need religion to be demonstrated, hence design is by nature scientific, using only reality, data and logicAny other questions?I already explained it did not come from religion anymore than knowing that it is wrong to steal did not come from reading a passage Wrong, the idea of design is from the observation and reality of nature, which predates any organized religionI would do a much better job in a courtroom, of demonstrating THAT, design comes from logic and reality rather than religion, thus it is science.But science, which is just a word, is trumped by reality and logic Reality and logic dont need science or ID, to demonstrate design.Those decisions were based on incomplete illlogical evidence and evidence of a biased nature.If you insist that science must be adhered to then fine, Reality and logic, demonstrate that design follows EVEN some contrived scientific methodBut the real REALITY OF EVIDENCE and applied LOGIC, trump the so-called scientific method.As a matter of fact science BOWS to Logic and the logic that supports design, when it is applied accuratley and consistently I read your soap opera here it has nothing to do with my position, it doesnt even come closeDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.