|
Author
|
Topic: ICR Sues Texas
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 31 of 549 (566282)
06-24-2010 12:31 AM
|
|
|
Forum member ramoss has provided an update here.
ramoss writes: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/...6/creationism_higher_ed.php The Institution for Creation Research was a California-based school that moved to the Dallas area three years ago. They applied to Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board for certification to give master's degrees in science; the HECB reviewed their curriculum and turned them down. They sued. A federal judge in Austin has ruled against the group and in favor of the HECB, in a ruling that stings pretty hard. "It appears that although the court has twice required [ICR] to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information," Judge Sam Sparks wrote. And then he got to the meat of the case. The Court notes for the record it enters no opinion here on whether it agrees with the Board's decision. It does not " judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic" of the Board's decision, because it has no jurisdiction to do so. The Court simply comes to the conclusion, which is inescapable, that the decision was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. He noted that the ICR is free to teach the course any way they want even with his ruling; they just can't offer a certified master's degree in science to graduates. And that's probably a good thing. In his summary judgment ruling Sparks said Joseph Stafford, one of the people reviewing the issue for the state: quoted the following excerpts from ICRGS's program catalog: 1. "It is the position of the institute that...all genuine facts of science support the Bible." 2. "The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator." 3. "All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis...[.] The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false. (emphasis added by Stafford). Dr. Stafford concluded these statements (and others) constituted a rejection of the fundamental principles which guide what scientists do, because scientists must "remain open to all facts and all observations of natural phenomena in order to refine and improve their comprehensive explanations of how natural processes appear to work." Thanks to ramoss.
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 32 of 549 (573916)
08-13-2010 5:17 AM
|
|
|
i have heard about this lawsuit and i disagree with two things: 1. the move to texas by icr 2. the suing of texas by icr. they had a good thing in california and now they are wasting a lot of money in a move they should not have done and in pursuing something via the legal system thenon the other hand, since the secular world does not own the field of science they have no authority to say what is or isn't scientific.
|
Wounded King
Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
then on the other hand, since the secular world does not own the field of science they have no authority to say what is or isn't scientific. But the judge recognises this. The ICR are quite welcome to continue to teach whatever creationist nonsense they wish as science. What the secular world is quite within its right to do is to decline to offer its own support and accreditation of what the ICR considers to be science. The secular authorities don't get to define what constitutes science for everyone, but they can define what their own criteria for science are to be eligible for their accreditation. TTFN, WK
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 36 by archaeologist, posted 08-14-2010 3:49 AM | | Wounded King has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
thenon the other hand, since the secular world does not own the field of science they have no authority to say what is or isn't scientific. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board does however have the authority, and the duty, to decide what does or doesn't count as a Master's Degree in science.
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
and now they are wasting a lot of money.... There's the bright side of the situation.......
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
What the secular world is quite within its right to do is to decline to offer its own support and accreditation of what the ICR considers to be science. the former i can agree with but the latter, i am not sure
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Wounded King, posted 08-13-2010 5:57 AM | | Wounded King has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 37 by jar, posted 08-14-2010 9:09 AM | | archaeologist has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Nor is it simply the secular world. The vast majority of Christians understand that Biblical Creationism is nothing but nonsense and "believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." A direct quote from the Clergy Project Letter.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 38 of 549 (574262)
08-15-2010 1:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
08-14-2010 9:09 AM
|
|
link please. it would surprise many secularists to know that their beloved science has its foundation in religion and bible believing people:
As a matter of fact, the most discerning historians and philosophers of science have recognized that the very existence of modern science had its origins in a culture atleast nominally committed to a biblical basis and at a time in history marked by a great return to biblical faith. As a matter if fact, authorization for the developement of science and technology was specifically commissioned in God's primeval mandate to Adam and Eve (gen. 1:26-8) and many early scientists, especially in england and america viewed it just this way. {Men of Science-Men of God pg. 1-2} now i do not 100% agree with the assessment the author makes on the list of men he writes about but he makes a good point. in reading that passage again, i think the author picked the wrong one to use as i do not see the same thing as he does.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by jar, posted 08-14-2010 9:09 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-15-2010 3:09 AM | | archaeologist has replied | | | Message 44 by jar, posted 08-15-2010 8:45 AM | | archaeologist has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
link please. Here you go. There's this great website called Google, I don't know if youve heard of it.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. Signed by 12,665 Christian clergy as of this Tuesday.
it would surprise many secularists to know that their beloved science has its foundation in religion and bible believing people: A lot of scientists were and are Christians, yes, and no "secularist" would be remotely surprised by such a statement. To say "science has its foundation in religion", on the other hand, is nonsense. It is interesting to see how fundamentalists simultaneously (falsely) ascribe science to their religion and (foolishly) deny the results of science. One thinks that they should make a consistent decision as to what to do with their imaginary cake. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
Signed by 12,665 Christian clergy as of this Tuesday. yet that does not mean that evolution is correct and creatism is wrong. With God the majority does not rule nor determine what is right, wrong, truth or error. God has set that standard and left it up to people to choose which they will accept and believe. all that shows is that 12,665 clergy do not believe the God they claim to serve and it is a sad day for the world that it is so.
It is interesting to see how fundamentalists simultaneously (falsely) ascribe science to their religion and (foolishly) deny the results of science being founded by does not mean they have to accept all results nor that those results are consistant with the founding fathers beliefs, especially when the field has been altered by contrary beliefs.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
archaeologist writes:
quote:
yet that does not mean that evolution is correct and creatism is wrong.
Indeed. What makes evolution correct and creationism wrong is the fact that all of the evidence supports evolution while none of it supports creationism. You see, evolution is a conclusion based upon the evidence. You don't start with the idea of evolution and then go looking for evidence to justify it. Instead, you start with the evidence and then analyze it to see where it leads you, which is to evolution. Instead, what it means is that your claim that one cannot believe in god and also recognize the fact of evolution is false. Clearly you can or those believers wouldn't be saying what they did.
quote:
all that shows is that 12,665 clergy do not believe the God they claim to serve and it is a sad day for the world that it is so.
Logical error: "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Who are you to tell them that they "do not believe the god they claim to serve"? The fact that you don't understand how one can reconcile god and evolution doesn't mean nobody else can. Have you considered the possibility that god does exist, just not in the way you think? Who are you to tell god what he can and cannot do, what he did and did not do, what he can and cannot be?
quote:
being founded by does not mean they have to accept all results
Actually, it does. You see, science is all interconnected. You cannot accept a process for one conclusion simply because you like it and then deny it as accurate when it reaches a conclusion you don't like. The process is the same so if you can accept the method by which we establish paternity, then you must also accept it when it establishes evolutionary lineages. It's the exact same thing. You don't get to dismiss it simply because you don't like the way it denies your preconceived notion of how things are supposed to be.
quote:
nor that those results are consistant with the founding fathers beliefs
Of course not. People are free to by hypocritical such as accepting science when they like the results and then denying the very same science when they don't. They just need to be honest about it.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
yet that does not mean that evolution is correct and creatism is wrong. No, what it means is that I supplied you with the link you asked for. A simple "thank you" would have sufficed.
all that shows is that 12,665 clergy do not believe the God they claim to serve and it is a sad day for the world that it is so. And yet on another thread you were defending a non-literal interpretation of the Book of Joshua. Would you like me to link you to some of the geocentrists who will make exactly the same complaint about you as you make about these 12,665 clergy?
With God the majority does not rule nor determine what is right, wrong, truth or error. God has set that standard and left it up to people to choose which they will accept and believe. And I see that you went with "error". Face it, if there is a God, then your favorite interpretation of your favorite translation of your favorite recension of your favorite canon of your favorite book is the work of men (your good self included) but the Universe is definitely the work of God. So perhaps you should pay more attention to it.
being founded by does not mean they have to accept all results nor that those results are consistant with the founding fathers beliefs, especially when the field has been altered by contrary beliefs. Obviously it's possible for you to be wrong about both issues simultaneously, since in fact you are; I just don't think it's a very dignified position.
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.8
|
archaeologist writes: Signed by 12,665 Christian clergy as of this Tuesday.
yet that does not mean that evolution is correct and creatism is wrong. Of course it doesn't mean that evolution is correct and creationism is wrong. Why on Earth did you think that was the point being made? The point is that the faith you think is an inviable truth is just one of many faith-based belief systems and is not universally shared. You can no more prove the truth of your faith than anyone else can prove theirs. Science, on the other hand, is not in the business of proving things. Science employs a method for understanding the natural world through the gathering of evidence, around which theories can be constructed and consensus developed through successful predictions. While many scientists have held and do hold sincere religious beliefs, modern scientific principles do not trace their origins to any faith-based or revelatory practices. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
I see others gave you the link.
archaeologist writes: it would surprise many secularists to know that their beloved science has its foundation in religion and bible believing people: Of course it would not surprise many people, secular or otherwise. Don't be silly. BUT that is only partially right. Religious people have always been involved in learning, including the science, but it was certainly not just Bible believing folk. Most of our mathematics came from the Hindu and Muslim cultures and it was the Muslims of Spain that keep the concept of science alive when the Bible believing Christians of the West turned their backs on knowledge and learning. That continues today. The originator of the Big Bang Theory was a Priest. The point is that your idea that an understanding and acceptance of Evolution is not compatible with Christianity or any other religion has been refuted, you are simply wrong.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
all that shows is that 12,665 clergy do not believe the God they claim to serve and it is a sad day for the world that it is so. No it simply shows that there are many possibilities and that your particular brand of Christianity differs from others. Why do you think there are so many Christian Denominations, none of which are the same as the original.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since 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
|
™ Version 4.2