|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ICR Sues Texas | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Buz,
You screwed up your edits, but I understand what you were trying to say. In your mind there are two kinds of science, secular science and creation science. The kind of science Texas is looking for when they provide accreditation is what you're calling secular science. Sticking with your terminology, ICR provides an anti-secular science curriculum, yet they want accreditation from Texas that they are providing an adequate secular science curriculum. In reality there's only one kind of science. It employs observations, experiment and the scientific method to develop an ever improving understanding of the natural universe. If ICR wants accreditation from Texas then they must begin teaching this kind of science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dawn Bertot writes: "Unobserved evidence" seems like a contradiction in terms. Do you have any examples of science relying upon unobserved evidence in support of theory? Observations of course include those that are indirect or assisted by technology and/or instrumentation. I meant an unobserved event. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dawn Bertot writes: 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 above 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:
Dawn Bertot writes: Taq writes: 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. 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'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.
Again 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 testable. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Buzsaw writes: Percy writes:
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? In reality there's only one kind of science. It employs observations, experiment and the scientific method to develop an ever improving understanding of the natural universe. If ICR wants accreditation from Texas then they must begin teaching this kind of science. Uh, pretty much. Revelation isn't science.
Why must creationist ID scholastically accredited scientists conform to a naturalist only form of science in order to be considered for creditaion? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Buz,
I think you're drifting a bit from the topic. Here's ICR's course curriculum from their catalog (The Creationist Worldview | The Institute for Creation Research):
ICR writes: Creationist Worldview Catalog The Creationist Worldview program, designed to be completed within approximately ten months, consists of 33 online courses divided into five study modules. Modules and courses are taken sequentially. Participants in this comprehensive study program will build on these distinctive foundational platforms:
Worldview studies carefully guide students through powerfully-written course work, informative textbook readings, advanced testing, supplemental material and resources, all from top scientists, academicians, and theologians. Click here to enroll in the Creationist Worldview Program. Module 1: Foundational Truths from the Bible
Module 2: The Biblical Model for Creationism
Module 3: Physical Science and Creationism
Module 4: Biological Science and Creationism
Module 5: Stewardship and the Dominion Mandate
In Module 3 they want to teach that science supports the Biblical events they outline in Module 2. Because science does not provide any support for these Biblical events, Texas will not provide accreditation for ICR's program. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
*
Edited by Percy, : Duplicate post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Buz,
You've been telling us that what you call secular science is different from intelligent design science, and we agree. Texas provides accreditation for what you're calling secular science, not intelligent design science. ICR doesn't even teach intelligent design science, they teach creation science. Steve Austin does creation science. In the opinion of what you're calling secular science, neither intelligent design science nor creation science are science. Intelligent design and creation must present their evidence and arguments in the venues of mainstream science in order to have any chance at all at building a scientific consensus for their views. The tiny percentage of scientists who accept creationist and ID views either work in unrelated fields of science, or they avoid the venues of mainstream science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Dawn Bertot,
No one's arguing there's no order in nature. What we're saying is that as far as we can tell, any observed order in nature is the product of matter and energy following the physical laws of the universe. Some other origin of this order can only be considered realistically possible once it's been observed and researched and established to actually exist. Then it could be considered part of science, ICR could teach it, and Texas could accredit it. We observe the entire life cycles of many, many different types of organisms, including ourselves, and never has anything been observed that was not just matter and energy following the laws of nature. This is true of the part of the life cycle where organisms compete to survive and procreate, and it is even true of the specific part of the life cycle concerned with reproduction where heritable mutations occur. There is no evidence of any kind of outside intervention at the current time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Not if rules of evidence all followed closely. If there is order as you admit and its the product of matter and energy, what is the product of energy and matter? Energy and matter when broken down demonstrate the same order. Unobserved behavior in this instance creation of these items is no reason to believe that they were not designed. So you believe that because matter and energy following the laws of nature demonstrate order that they are evidence of design because there "is no reason to believe that they were not designed?" Really?
The simple rule of evidence, when applied correctly and across the board is that if i were a gasous form of life never having experienced or seen human life and came across a computer and I observed its functions and operation, the rule of evidence would be to assume because it has order it was designed. Computers are designed and constructed by people, and people are just matter and energy following the laws of nature. A computer is just another example of the design you're claiming for life and, apparently, the entire universe. For you if it exists and follows the physical laws of the universe, it was designed. We think the diversity of species in the world today came about through evolution because when we study life we observe the processes of mutation and natural selection, and when we project those processes back in time they lead us to expect what we actually find in the fossil record. When creationists and IDists study life they do not observe the processes they claim created today's diversity of species. In fact, their claimed processes have never been observed. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I, too, don't understand the conceit associated with knowing something someone else doesn't know. We all have our areas of specialty, and expertise with computers is not evidence of anything special.
I'm not a gamer, either, nor a card player. I do like chess, but it takes too much time to maintain a decent level of skill and I don't play anymore. I've always enjoyed programming, though, and I still do a lot of that. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dawn Bertot writes: No. I believe that complex order is evidence of complex order. By any reasonable rule of evidence that would be evidence to support the logical conclusion that it is designed. Coyote has several times mentioned the counterexample of the complex order of the snowflake (among other things). What is the train of logic that leads you to conclude it is not designed? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Ill answer both at the same time. I have now several times addressed this issue. That which is a result of the mechanism or in this case organisms and molecules, which arethe more complex order, is a relative representation of the visible order of the living orderely organism. the shape of the snowflake is relative, to the living ordered organism. the order of the organism is not relative, the shape it produces is I can't make any sense out of this. Let me try to list and distill down what appear to be the statements of fact, followed by my questions.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dawn Bertot writes: For the fourth or fifth time now, the shape you see in the snowflake is a RELATIVE shape, it can have no design where the is nothing else to compare it with, UNLIKE THE ORGANISMS AND MOLECULES that make its shape, which are ordered, designed and comparative to others that do exist. I'm afraid I can't make sense of this either. I'll break it down like I did before as best I can:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dawn Bertot writes: Isnt relative self explanatory. it cant be relative to something else if its relative. Maybe relative isn't the right word for what you're trying to describe. This is from Answers.com:
relative (rĕl'ə-tĭv) adj.
A word closer to what you're thinking of might be "independent."
No design because it is not comparable to anything else, if all snowflakes are different, correct?...I didnt say there was nothing to compare a snowflake with, I said there is nothing to compare its shape to, because no snowflake is shaped the same, correct? I'm still not getting it. All snowflakes are different, but they all have six points. All people are different, but they all have 2 arms and 2 legs.
The basic structure of the snowflake, that which is its makeup, the molecules and the such like are comparable to others in a different place and are testable to be the same order of another snowflake, even if the other produces a different relative shape And the basic structure of a person, that which is its makeup, the molecules and the such like are comparable to others in a different place and are testable to be the same order of another person, even if the other produces a different relative shape.
Organisms and molecules are designed. (Isn't this just a declaration of your conclusion?) No. this is a declaration of the testable and observable order, using a rule of evidence, the conclusionof which is demonstratable and irrefutable, but not absolutley provable Okay, I'm going to have to dissect this. You appear to be saying that organisms and molecules have a testable and observable order, and that by using a rule of evidence you were able to conclude that organisms and molecules are designed. So I guess I'm wondering what is the rule of evidence you used to reach your conclusion. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024