|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
No, it's not a big enough issue, and not one that really runs on left/right/centre political lines. Groups like secular humanists campaign for it, and individuals, like R. Dawkins, needless to say.
Sounds a lot like down here. The schools get some public funding in exchange for teaching the public curricula. They end up with a little extra time to do the religious stuff they want; there's several optional standards on religious education that you can do which are also part of the national standards. As for the public, about 85% think that children from all the different religions should be educated together. And everybody is quite happy with the arrangement.
As for the Swedes, they're a nation of baby eaters.
Lol. We seem to have a neighbouring country* much like this... {this would be Australia I refer to. Long story.} Edited by Nij, : Just in case they dun't geddit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
quote:Likewise. 13 years of Catholicism-supplemented education, and not a single desire to ever have more of it. We had mass around once a week, REST once a day (sometimes less), and I'm quite sure nobody in my school actually believes in any of it. It's awesome to live in a truly free country.
In summary, even though quite a few people will identify themselves as "believers" here, it's not the kind of belief people like archie will appreciate.
As far as I can tell from his rambling, that would include anyone not in direct agreement with all of his idiosyncracies. Which also includes himself, it would seem from the contradictions he manages to weave.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Right, evolution is a fact, while biological Macro evolution is a theory
No. Macroevolution is evolution; evolution is a fact of the natural world. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. The theory is not the fact. The fact exists; the theory explains the fact. I think somebody made this distinction in other threads (but it may be the older unactive ones).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
{pop} "So, who else wants champagne? No? How about some spirits, then..."
Perhaps they've finally realised that creationism simply isn't science, that everybody recognises that fact, and are prepared to focus on using faith instead of lying to achieve their goals? Well, I say "instead of", but to me they're barely differentiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
As far as I can understand, your argument-in-a-nutshell is that
From the examples you have presented, that basis would be chemistry and the laws of physics, as science has told us for quite a wee while now. So the designer if anything, is just the laws of nature. Exactly as science tells us and exactly as someone that accepts evolution would think. If you're arguing that there is somehow a divine intervention involved then you'll need to expand that out a bit, because it doesn't derive at all from the above points. Unless I'm missing something, in which case it would be quite helpful to have that explained. Edited by Nij, : "Where's P?""Running down my leg!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Do you not understand that by making this comment, you are drawing a conclusion, the likes of which you are making a determination based on events you did not witness.
Nonsense. You clearly either didn't read or didn't understand my post. Which pains me somewhat, as I did try to make it simple and unambiguous, and evidently failed. My conclusion is that from the premises and evidence you provided (or were provided with) the only possible designer that can be concluded is nature itself. No divinity could be directly derived from any of those premises o evidences. If that is not what your argument says, then please indicate to me which premise allows you to conclude any divinity being involved; it's not apparent anywhere.
Hence you are allowing in yourself and your argument,something that you will not allow in mine
I'm using your argument. How could I restrict something from you and then use it myself in the exact same argument that you used yourself?
Your conclusion is that there is no evidence of the designer, you are drawing a conclusion using a rule of evidence, mine is that there is good reason to bekieve there is, based on soild evidence.
Bullshit. My conclusion is that based on your argument -- as I could understand it -- there was no requirement for the designer to be divine. I specifically stated that if there is a designer, it is merely the collection of the laws of nature. For the second time, from which premise can you derive that the designer is divine?
do you see your inconsistencyand double standard
I don't, because there is none. I am working solely through your argument with zero reference to any of my own.If there is inconsistency or a double standard that you see, it must be solely contained in your own argument. Edited by Nij, : Fix quotebox.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
this not a counterfactual response this is a complaint w/ no actual reasons as to why the only possible designer is nature. youve done nothing but disagree
It is a perfectly factual response. You said that "order and complexity, therefore a divine designer". I wrote your argument out in a logical form, and there are zeor assumptions/premises that can be used to derive any divine involvement. The best you can do from the argument you provided is that if a designer exists, it is only the laws of nature. This is not my opinion. This is not a complaint. It is a simple fact of logic: you cannot derive a conclusion if the assumptions do not include it.
You havent even countered my argument yet,
No, I have not. I merely made it explicit and demonstrated that your conclusion did not follow from your argument.
all you have done is disagree
And all you have done is said I did something that I have not, without answering the point I made; to do so, you would have to provide the exact premise that allows you to derive design from the existence of complexity and order.
Since you dont set out in any logical form how there is no requirement for a designer, other than just stating it is the laws of nature.
I am not claiming there is no need for a designer to be divine. I am saying that your argument does not and cannot lead to that conclusion, and that therefore you are incorrect in making it.
secondly you didnt explain how from my argument you were justified in claiming there was no need for the designer to be divine, since I never even implied it even indirectly Perhaps you could explain this odd method of argumentation, simply by implication and assertion
Lol. Perhaps you could explain your odd method of argumentation, where the conclusion never follows from the premises? My argument depends on neither implication nor assertion. It depends entirely upon the rules of logic, which as I have shown, yours do not.
By the COMPLEX ORDER AND LAWS in nature and the rules of evidence
The existence of complex order and laws is only a logical premise for the existence of complex order and laws; it is not a logcial premise for the existence of a divine designer. "A --> A" is a necessary truth; "A --> B" must be assumed as a premise, and I don't recall you doing it. Your "rules of evidence" have never been defined, hence are not admissible as part of any premise, and thereby cannot be used in the argument (until you do define them, that is).
Answer the two questions I posed to Coyote and see if you can find an inconsistency in the application of evidential rules
But I never referenced anything by Coyote. I never referenced anything involving evidence. I never referenced anything involving "evidential rules".All I have done is put your own argument into a logical form, and shown that it does not lead to your conclusion. Now, how about you try defending your position from itself, instead of the ghost attacks you think I am creating? Edited by Nij, : Fix quotebox.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined:
|
As Percy mentions, you keep talking about some "rules of evidence".
I don't have the foggiest clue what you are jabbering about. So, please define those "rules". And I will probably tell you that those "rules" don't actually exist anywhere else but in your head for your argument. And then:
rules and order implies a designer, ...
That is why your argument fails: you assume that which you wish to conclude. There is no way to derive "design" from "complex and ordered". You were presented with examples that clearly showed complexity and order, yet which are obviously the result of entirely natural processes. You still haven't provided the determination that lets you state that if something is ordered and/or complex, then it was designed.So, now we've got that sorted, it appears your argument is actually more like: Minor conclusion by transitivity: IF order and complexity exist THEN there is a designer. Major conclusion from modus ponens: There is a designer. Which, while logically valid, is not applicable to the real world: complexity and order do not imply design or at most they imply that the "designer" is simply the laws of nature, as the examples provided earlier show. Thus your conclusion, while perfectly logical is still not realistic [viz. "applying to or to do with reality"]. Edited by Nij, : Further phrase to allow alternate conclusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
I am making exactly zero assertions, except the one in my last sentence: that your argument is unapplicable to reality, except in the case where the order and complexity have arisen as a result of solely natural laws.
You require the assumption that "if complexity and order exist, then they were designed". Which is not applicable to reality, because you have been shown that complexity and order do not imply design. This is a very simple idea, and you seem to have trouble with it. So what exactly -- meaning "don't go off on tangents about something else" -- is your problem with my description of your argument? And then, what exactly is your problem with the conclusion I describe? And then, what exactly is your problem with the idea that
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
{metadiscussion of the recent topic}
As I understand it, Dawn's argument is based on order and complexity demonstrating the existence of a designer by simple examination of nature, and from this basis claiming that it is a valid conclusion to label any "research" or "study" of that designer to be science. Those contesting that claim are pointing out that the main assumption -- "IF order and complexity exist THEN they are designed/there is a designer" -- cannot be determined from anything existing in the universe. Examples were provided (e.g. quartz crystals) to show that neither order nor complexity is indicative of design, and that therefore the conclusion, while entirely logically valid, cannot be applied to reality because not all of its assumptions are applicable to reality.{/meta} So, to make this next section very clear,Dawn Bertot: can you please provide evidence and/or reasoning that shows the assumption -- that order/complexity implies design -- is applicable to reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
If you can't provide one simple explanation of your position without addressing the question raised, then why the fuck are you replying?
You were given examples of order and complexity that did not have a designer; they arose only from the laws of nature. Therefore order and complexity do not imply design. Therefore your premise that order and complexity imply design is erroneous at best, and nonsense at worst. It cannot be applied to reality, because reality does not require that order and complexity imply a designer (and the caveat I provided: at best, this designer is only the laws of nature). Your most recent post does nothing to address these examples: you have not shown that these structures are designed, you have not shown that these structures are not ordered or complex, you have not provided any way of determining whether something is complex or orderly enough to justify calling it design. Therefore reality is inconsistent with your premise; your premise is not applicable to reality. Therefore, your conclusion is not applicable to reality. Exactly what part of that process is causing you so much trouble that you are reduced to tangential discussion and rambling? You also continue to assert that you are applying the "same rules of evidence" I/we are, despite being told multiple times that we DO NOT HAVE any fucking rules of evidence! You have never explained your position in any meaningful or consistent way, despite the damndest effort to understand it through the use of one simple question at a time. I'm sorry, but in any real debate your argument would be scored a zero for failing to support your conclusion in reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
For fuck's sake...
How did you determine they did not have a designer, by observation of immediate materia
For the third time, I have NOT SAID there was NO designer. I have stated that your argument is not applicable to reality, because your assumption is not. You have asserted that order and complexity imply design; I and others have countered that assertion with evidence showing that it doesn't. You must now provide evidence and/or reasoning to counter our evidence, and demonstrate that order and complexity imply design, or your argument fails. Your assumption is not based in reality; mine is. Regardless of how valid, your logic is not applicable to reality, and therefore should not be taught in any science class. It's as simple as that, and for someone who thinks others are trying to be ignorant, you're certainly showing it a lot yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
So, what?
"We aren't allowed to call it science, but that's okay because it's actually apologetics, and religious stuff doesn't need official tickboxes anyway because it's religious, not scientific." Loving how they shot themselves in the foot there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Which "new developments" would these be?
Appeals? New claims by ICR? Links if possible, please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
The board considered the history of intelligent design and creationism. Both have been legally declared religious concepts in the US and have been declared not scientific by both the same courts and by the scientific community at large.
If ICR wished to push a suit, they would lose: the judge would take one look at their suit and ignore it, because a) they can't write a decent legal document to save their asses and b) the judge would know that any legal ruling would have to include the fact that creationism/ID is not science. The only possible result is a of denial for writ of whatever they call it or a judgement that it isn't science so THECB has no reason to allow it to be called that. Plus the countersuit for harrassment.
No examination of the real evidence or objectivity by the so-called "professional scientists", They simply hijacked the boards decisions and became the board themselves
The first team was incompetent/unqualified. The second was not incompetent/unqualified. Hmmmmmm?The second group was professional scientists. Their advice was given before the Board made their decision, because the Board followed the recommendations of the Commissioner and he followed the recommendation of the scientists. {abe: I would like to point out that this means if anything, the Board hijacked the Commissioner's decision or the scientists' decision. Certainly not the other way around. However, nobody is hijacking anything; they are working through thr standard process to reach the conclusion most appropriate to the case.} Which as I mentioned earlier, is that neither creationism nor its bastard offshoots are science.
Quote
So, first you criticise for not having professional scientists do an evaluation, then you criticise the people evaluating it for being "scientists, not .. thinkers"."The THECB members correctly decided, however, that they must support Commissioner Paredes' recommendation, which he reached after carefully evaluating ICR's application using a team of professional scientists and science education professors who had the actual expertise to perform the evaluation. (The first evaluation team had no one on it who was competent to professionally evaluate ICR.) Unfortunate. Professional scientist and not professional thinkerSo which are they, Dawn? Are they scientists or are they not? By the way, you may also be interested to know that a scientist is necessarily a thinker. You can't do science without actually thinking about it. You'll disagree, of course, citing that "secular scientists are brainwashed into not thinking" or some similar idea.
It would only take me 20 minutes to convince the THECB otherwise
ICR couldn't do it using their academic staff and then professional lawyers over a period of months. They were up against professional scientists -- by which I mean real scientists, not creationists pretending to wear lab coats -- and legal precedent.You'd be fucked over in 10 minutes; the other ten would be spent in you trying to yell over the sound of them laughing. Edited by Nij, : Clarification.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024