ICR Sues Texas

No disagreement here, but can you test and measure where all of these wonderful things came from in the first place, to perform those functions?can you test that these things were not DESIGNED to operate in that manner to begin with?I have no real disagreement with your theory or the evidence you use to demonstrate it. Only that you ascribe to design requirements that you do not to yourself, namely that which I have mentioned aboveNamely that we must provide evidence of the designer outside of design itself, but you yourself need not worry about your initiator of the evolutionary process, because for some strange reason all the RULES change when it comes to your theory YesAgain your jumping the gun assuming I am talking about ID instead of design. design is obvious by all the same test you use, who designed it is another question.Design is measurable and testable by the fact that it operates orderly, and by laws it was designed to perform, to accomplish a specific purpose. Thats testableHow MANY SCIENTIFIC MODEL rules should design follow, if one demonstrates its measurable evidence?Now this is for the people that I have just reponded to. its not a matter of whether either is true, it is a matter of whether both can be evidentually demonstrated f rom a standpoint of data and logic. the answer is yes, both can be demonstratedNow listen up kiddiesThe reason both can be factually demonstrated is because they are the only two demonstratable logical choices for existence, as they have been since time began, knotheadsits a matter of logic, not a scientific method
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No, that's just a petitio principii. This is, of course, not true. Logic would actually suggest that two incompatible theses cannot both be "factually demonstrated".

And if they were offering a degree in "Intelligent Design", then those employers could exercise their choice. But they want to call it a degree in "Science", thus disguising people who have been educated (and I use the term loosely) in creationism as people who've been educated in science. But the basis for refusing them accreditation was that they didn't meet reasonable academic standards.Someone who has merely learned to recite creationist bibble about the second law of thermodynamics would not know how to derive the Kelvin-Planck statement of that law from the Clausius statement, nor be able to use that law to calculate the maximum theoretical efficiency of a refrigerator. Someone who has merely learned the dogmas of "flood geology" wouldn't know a schist from a shale or foliation from stratification. Someone who has merely learned creationist arguments against the Big Bang wouldn't know Einstein's GR equations or understand them if he did.And this would be true even if the creationist arguments were all right rather than being all wrong. Merely learning how to argue for creationism does not constitute an education in any field of science; nor, it was found, were the staff of the college academically qualified to offer such an education even if they should wish to.

LOL. Secularists define science very narrowly so as to accomodate their own science agenda and disqualify alternative premises from which alternative scientists postulate.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

Secularists have noting to do with it. The problem is that ICR state a priori that the bible is correct no matter what. That's not how science works. If evidence is found that contradicts earlier held beliefs, those beliefs need to be discarded or modified. This can't happen with ICR "science", therefore they're not doing science.

Let's try this Buz.Put an egg in a cup of vinegar. Leave it in there for 24 hours. What happens? It is really rather neat.Did you try and guess what would happen? Were you surprised that you were wrong (if you were)? Guess what: you just did "secular science".Science is fun Buz. You should try it sometime. Here, check this out: experiments you can try at home. Science isn't some evil monster that you need to fight tooth and nail and be afraid of. Rather, it is simply a process. I'm sure you use the scientific method every day without knowing it.Now, let's check some "ID science" What sort of experiment could you have me perform that is in accordance with "ID science"?

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

You're again making the claim that design and evolution are being held to different standards. Here you say you mentioned this difference "above," so here's all the text that appeared above: I've read through this several times. Could you clarify what you think are the different standards? What are the standards applied to design, and what are the standards applied to evolution, and how are they different?If I could anticipate a bit, I think your claim is based upon a misunderstanding. You see us accepting natural processes but not design as a valid inference from the evidence, and you assume it must be because we're applying different standards.But we're not applying different standards. We're applying precisely the same standard to both design and natural processes. We're only inferring processes for which we have evidence. While we have evidence for natural processes, we have no evidence for design and implementation by a designer. All it takes for design to become accepted as a valid inference is for someone to produce evidence that design and implementation by a designer is something that happens in the real world.For example, in mutation experiments with bacteria all we see is natural processes at work. You need to perform similar experiments and find some kind of activity by a designer. In the absence of such evidence all we can do is infer that the same natural processes driving mutations in bacteria today were responsible for bacterial mutations in the past. One of the reasons we reject design as a valid inference is that there's no evidence for the claims you're making about design. Natural processes follow laws that have been established by scientific research. We know how natural processes operate today, and we infer from the evidence that they operated the same in the past. If design is "orderly" and governed by "laws," where is the research that has established this orderliness and these laws, and what are those laws?--Percy

Take an a priori assumption about something, distort the actual evidence, lie about stuff like other publications on the subject not existing, write a book, and commit purgery in a court.

Uh, pretty much. Revelation isn't science. Because naturalistic is part of the definition of science. You call it secular science, so sticking with your terminology, Texas is providing accreditation for curriculums judged competent at teaching secular science.In Message 186 you drew a stark contrast between secular science and what you called "the creationist 'higher power' interpretive mindset." You clearly understand that secular science and creation science are not the same thing, and it is secular science that Texas is providing accreditation for. To the extent that ICR shares your views, it makes no sense that they are seeking accreditation for something they know they don't teach.--Percy

I would actually like to see a response from DB or Buz, since they are both touting a separate form of science. It would make for a good thread, I think. I mean, if there is such a thing as "ID/Creation science", there should be some experiments we could perform, right? There are millions upon millions of "secular science" experiments that ANYONE can perform with household items, so there should be at least a few "ID/Creation science" experiments we could do.This is such a silly argument. Science is not an "it" it's not a "thing": it is a way to figure shit out. I'm beginning to wonder if these individuals even know what secular means........{ABE}
I didn't mean that to sound as though I didn't appreciate your response, Huntard (the first line sounds a bit rude now that I read it in thread). Sorry mate.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Hi Dawn Bertot,I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your last post. I think it would probably be sufficient if you just explained what you think the "unobservered events" are that evolution is claiming as evidence.--Percy

That would indeed make an interesting thread, I'll see if I can start one on it this evening. Unless you want to start one yourself, of course. Your daddy raped you didn't he? Don't worry mate, if there's one thing about me, I am not easily offended, nor did I read your first line as such.

I'm sorry but that is simply another false statement. In fact, I can't imagine how you could be more wrong.The basic premise of Science is that you must go where the evidence leads, not where you want to go.When the evidence refutes your favored answer then you MUST throw your favored answer away.As long as ICR demands that the Bible be factually correct, they cannot do Science.

---

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

Is that what happens when you take to much Milk of Magnesia before court?

If you folks are so down on real science, and so enamored with your "alternative" sciences, why don't you just found your own discipline and leave real science alone?Just think of all the discoveries you could make unfettered by our narrow definition of science!Have at it! Knock yourselves out and quit bitching at us!

---

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