ICR Sues Texas

Faster than a speeding bullet.More powerful than a locomotive.Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.Look! Up in the sky!It's a bird!It's a plane!It's...Superman!Yes, it's Superman, strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman, who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel in his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for truth, justice and the American way!And that's from memory, too!--PercyEdited by Percy, : Memory apparently not as good as I remember, added Clark Kent's name.

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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

So many Christian sects, so little time. Why don't you explain to us the difference in interpretation of God's rules that makes you right and, say, the Methodists wrong? If this were true then the best scientific answers would flow out of conservative Christian colleges and universities, but for the most part no scientific answers at all come from these institutions. Of the Christian institutions that you believe have the correct interpretation of God's rules, can you name any that have made a contribution to modern science? Why should science not ask questions about origins? Or about anything, for that matter? Where is this rule found in the Bible, and if you find it, how do you know it is a rule of God and not simply what some person wrote down?I presume you believe it's okay for science to ask questions about paternity. DNA tests do this pretty well. So you presumably agree DNA testing can go back one generation.How about two generations? Do you believe DNA testing can trace back two generations? If not, why not?How about three generations?You can see where I'm going here. At what point do you believe DNA testing is no longer valid for determining relatedness, and why? Yes, that's exactly what your people did.--Percy

Sure you did. Back in Message 40 about the clergy letter supporting evolution you said: In your next Message 46 you followed this by saying: The Methodists accept evolution, and a great many Methodist pastors are signatories to the clergy letter. What is the difference in interpretation of God's rules that makes you right and the Methodists not only wrong, but not even "part of God's kingdom nor Christian?" So you think that origins are outside of the scope of science, and that evolution has "never existed," but you don't appear to have thought this through. Science can study the evolutionary changes between you and your parents. And it can study the evolutionary changes between your parents and your grandparents, and so forth back through time. What criteria are you applying to decide where science has gone outside it's scope, since all it's doing is studying the natural world?Most creationists accept that evolution happens, and many creationists even insist on hyper-evolution having taken place after the flood in order to explain the huge amount of genetic diversity we see today arising in such a short time, just a few thousand years. They make this claim because if, for example, there were only 2 kangaroos on the ark then in the absence of evolution there could be at most 4 alleles for any kangaroo gene. But there are scores of alleles for some kangaroo genes, and the only way that could happen in just a few thousand years is hyper-evolution.We know evolution happens from the simple fact that reproduction is imperfect. On average each human being has about a hundred mutational differences from their parents. This means they have around a hundred places in their genes where the nucleotide sequence doesn't match any sequence from their mother or father. At heart evolution is just alleles changing over time, and each reproductive event changes some of the alleles due to mutations. Ah, yes, the great evolution conspiracy again, engaged in by scientists of all religions and no religion, and from all nations and all cultures.When you find evidence of what DNA research the researchers have not been honest about or that has been manipulated due to "social, political, academic & legal pressures" then you please let us know, but until then perhaps you could just answer the question, which I'll repeat:I presume you believe it's okay for science to ask questions about paternity. DNA tests do this pretty well. So you presumably agree DNA testing can go back one generation.How about two generations? Do you believe DNA testing can trace back two generations? If not, why not?How about three generations?You can see where I'm going here. At what point do you believe DNA testing is no longer valid for determining relatedness, and why?--Percy

Hi Archaeologist,If you'd like to discuss any of these topics:

• Eugenics
  ​
• The horrors the American government did to people in the name of science
  ​
• Why it's difficult to have a discussion with secularists

Then please propose new threads for these topics over at Proposed New Topics.About the Methodists, they support evolution. Their Book of Discipline states: But you said that any church that accepted evolution had abandoned God, and that's why I am asking you by what criteria are you judging the Methodists wrong and yourself right. On the contrary, I'm entertaining your opposing viewpoint right now. What I'm asking you for is the supporting evidence for your viewpoint. For example, you go on to say this: Since nearly every instance of reproduction includes some number of mutations, which is micro-evolution, and since natural selection has been demonstrated over and over again (most obviously to everyone in the world with the evolution of new strains of flu virus annually), you need to explain the evidence that supports your views. How does somebody faking test results invalidate DNA analysis? I think you should a) stay on topic; b) look in the mirror.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix forum link.

You seem to have overlooked Message 59.--Percy

Students are taught the current consensus within science. All creation needs to do to get into the classroom is to become the consensus within science. It is because ICR wants to give degrees not only outside the scientific consensus but outright rejected by 99% of scientists that it cannot get accreditation in Texas.--Percy

When people say that evolution is a fact they're referring to the progression of fossils in the geological column. That life has changed over time is so obvious an inference from this evidence that many prefer to call it a fact. Even though you do not consider this inference a fact, certainly this evidence is something we can both agree should be taught in science class.But the theories that are taught in science class are tentative inferences from the evidence and can never be considered facts. Consensus develops around theories with strong supporting evidence. Theories around which a strong consensus has developed are what is taught in science class.The proper path that creationism or ID should take to the science class is to work toward becoming accepted as part of the scientific consensus.--Percy

ICR would probably tend to agree with you, and this anti-science attitude combined with appeals to a higher power were probably significant contributors to Texas's decision to deny ICR accreditation.--Percy

The replication requirement of science refers to scientific results, not to past events. It means that the observations and/or results of experiments performed by one scientist must be reproducible by other scientists. To the extent that the ICR curriculum follows revelation such as this instead of scientific facts and theories, it would represent a serious obstacle to accreditation. Texas, and I hope all states, require that accredited degree programs in science actually teach science.--Percy

As Huntard has already noted, you keep stating what you believe, but never why. You need to explain the evidence and reasoning that led you to believe as you do. Cavediver already pointed out the errors, so I'll just mention that even if we didn't understand gravity at all, things we don't yet understand are not evidence of anything. If you think they are then a thread where discussing this would be on topic is your Creation as Science thread. You could begin supporting all your unsupported assertions.--Percy

Evidence is anything that can be detected by our senses. Indirect means of gathering evidence, such as instrumentation like thermometers, microscopes and Large Hadron Colliders, are also valid.--Percy

What you said in Message 133 that I was responding to was: "Secularist minded science elitists?" "Higher power?" Those are clear expressions of an anti-science attitude.Like I said, ICR would probably tend to agree with you, and this anti-science attitude combined with appeals to a higher power were probably significant contributors to Texas's decision to deny ICR accreditation.--Percy

Hi Dawn Bertot,"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.--Percy

This is oddly phrased, but if I understand you correctly then yes, of course it is possible to establish facts about past events that left evidence behind.Could you clearly describe two things so that we could make an actual comparison:

1. The rules of science to which creation and ID are held.
   ​
2. The rules of science for everyone else.

--Percy