ICR Sues Texas

Creationism is anti-science.And they want a MS in creationism? What a crock!(See tagline.)

---

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

My guess is Arch would love a theocracy as long as his gang was in charge.

---

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

Please try to use scientific terms correctly:Evolution is a demonstrable fact. That change occurs from generation to generation is not seriously disputed by anyone but a few cranks.The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation how existing species developed. The theory explains all of the myriad facts that have been observed, and has successfully made predictions.Religious belief does not need scientific facts or theories; it relies on scripture, dogma, faith, etc. And, as such, it cannot be used to contradict scientific facts or theories.

---

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

The first is a fact, the second is a theory. Theories explain facts.Theories are disproved by facts that contradict them, and by facts they cannot explain.Religion provides neither, as it is not based on data, as you claim, but on belief and faith.These are the exact opposite of science, and in fact are both anti-science and anti-rational. Yet, you want to use religious belief as scientific evidence. Sorry, that doesn't work.

---

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

Click to enlarge.

---

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

ICR's version of science is anti-science, and you know it. Henry Morris has provided us with the statement, "The creation revelation in Scripture is thus supported by all true facts of nature..." His "The Tenets of Creationism" provides us with the following (from the ICR website):Tenets of Scientific Creationism

• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
  
• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
  
• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
  
• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
  
• The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
  
• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
  
• The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
  
• Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
  
• Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.

Tenets of Biblical Creationism

• The Creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  
• There is only one eternal and transcendent God, the source of all being and meaning, and He exists in three Persons, each of whom participated in the work of creation.
  
• The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
  
• All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development which involve evolution in any form are false. All things which now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.
  
• The first human beings, Adam and Eve, were specially created by God, and all other men and women are their descendants. In Adam, mankind was instructed to exercise "dominion" over all other created organisms, and over the earth itself (an implicit commission for true science, technology, commerce, fine art, and education) but the temptation by Satan and the entrance of sin brought God's curse on that dominion and on mankind, culminating in death and separation from God as the natural and proper consequence.
  
• The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and Fall of man, the Curse on the Creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government) and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
  
• The alienation of man from his Creator because of sin can only be remedied by the Creator Himself, who became man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, through miraculous conception and virgin birth. In Christ we are indissolubly united perfect sinless humanity and full deity, so that His substitutionary death is the only necessary and sufficient price of man's redemption. That the redemption was completely efficacious is assured by His bodily resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven; the resurrection of Christ is thus the focal point of history, assuring the consummation of God's purposes in creation.
  
• The final restoration of creation's perfection is yet future, but individuals can immediately be restored to fellowship with their Creator, on the basis of His redemptive work on their behalf, receiving forgiveness and eternal life solely through personal trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, accepting Him not only as estranged Creator but also as reconciling Redeemer and coming King. Those who reject Him, however, or who neglect to believe on Him, thereby continue in their state of rebellion and must ultimately be consigned to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
  
• The eventual accomplishment of God's eternal purposes in creation, with the removal of His curse and the restoration of all things to divine perfection, will take place at the personal bodily return to Earth of Jesus Christ to judge and purge sin and to establish His eternal kingdom.
  
• Each believer should participate in the "ministry of reconciliation," by seeking both to bring individuals back to God in Christ (the "Great Commission") and to "subdue the earth" for God's glory (the Edenic-Noahic Commission). The three institutions established by the Creator for the implementation of His purposes in this world (home, government, church) should be honored and supported as such.
  

(Yellow highlighting added.)Now Buz, do you see any resemblance to science in this? I don't. What I see is overriding dogma, which will not permit any scientific evidence to the contrary. They have no interest in science, nor are they willing to follow it's methods because it's findings contradict their beliefs.So don't pretend what the ICR, and those who follow in it's footsteps, does is science.

---

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

Because that's how science works!You can call the religion you practice anything you want, but when you try to pass it off as science when it is the exact opposite of science don't be surprised when real scientists call you on it.As has been pointed out, when you have an a priori mandate that your "science" must conform to the bible, it is not science. It has taken the exact opposite approach than is found in the scientific method, where the data determines the direction.To pass creation "science" and ID off as real science, when both must adhere to biblical belief, is to promote a lie.

---

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

Where do you think ID came from?Did it come from the science world, spurred by the failure of existing theories to explain the data?Or was it born from the ashes of creation "science" after the U.S. Supreme Court's Edwards decision in the late 1980s? You remember that decision, do you? It ruled that creation "science" was creationism and had no place in the school systems.The evidence presented at the Dover trial showed that ID clearly evolved from creation "science" in an effort to sneak creationism back into the school systems.There is no science inherent to ID; rather, it is another disingenuous attempt on the part of creationists to pretend to do science, and to fool the unwitting (especially school boards). And, like creation "science" before it, ID has failed.You don't believe this? Read the Dover decision. It can be found here.

---

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

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.

The "alternative" science you are referring to is the opposite of real science. It starts out with a conclusion and seeks only evidence that supports that conclusion, ignoring, misrepresenting, or denying any evidence that contradicts it. This is called creation "science" and it differs from religious apologetics in name only. Some premises lead to discoveries, others seek only to support certain a priori beliefs.Face it, your ID premise leads nowhere. It was "designed" to promote a particular narrow view of religion. No discoveries are forthcoming, as discoveries are not it's purpose. Look at the Discovery Institute--what have they discovered over the years? They are promoting a particular religious view, dishonestly pretending that they are doing real science.So I ask again, if your "alternative" science is so good, why don't you guys found a discipline based on it and run with it? Surely if it provides such a superior outcome it will prove itself in short order, right?Why do you keep harassing science and trying to get science to change the way it functions? Just start your own discipline.(Actually, we all know the answer to this, now don't we? And this is the reason that ICR is being refused accreditation in Texas.)

---

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

But there's one big difference: real science abandons those hypotheses that are contradicted by the evidence! Religious apologetics can't abandon it's beliefs no matter what the evidence to the contrary because they are beliefs.Good examples are the young earth belief and the belief that there was a global flood about 4,350 years ago. These are conclusions of religious belief that can't be abandoned no matter how much evidence is found that disproves them.So don't give me any more nonsense. It is clear from reading what you creationists write that scientists are the only ones who's research and methodology is science. You prove that with most every post. Both nonsense and a non sequitur. Isn't it ironic that you are trying to show how much ID resembles science, and the example you choose is some event straight out of the bible?Face it: ID is not science and while it's purpose is to push a particular religious belief there is no way it can ever be. And science is not going to change it's methods to accommodate creationists' religious beliefs no matter how much they whine about it.If you think you have the truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even the TRVTH, go ahead and found a discipline to pursue it and leave real science alone.

---

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

What you don't seem to understand is that the method determines what you are doing, not the credentials.The credentials may determine how well you do something.Take a look at the requirements of the various creationist organizations: Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Studies Institute, and Answers in Genesis for example. Each of these groups requires it's members to abide by it's particular statement of faith or whatever it may be called.Here is the first part of the Statement of Faith of Answers in Genesis:

(A) PRIORITIES

​

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

​

(B) BASICS

​

1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
4. The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man's sin.

Now, what do you think an accredited scientist who is a member of this group is going to do? He's going to follow the AIG Statement of Faith, not the scientific method.But the minute someone ditches the scientific method they are not doing science no matter what their credentials. They are using their scientific credentials in a fraudulent manner!I'd be more careful touting how many credentialed "scientists" who are doing creationism and ID. They are just trying to fool people with their abandoned credentials.

---

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

How do you heat your cave then?

---

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

You are inferring design, not observing it.Otherwise, you would be able to produce rules which would unambiguously differentiate between designed and not designed.Snowflake; quartz crystal; stalagmite and stalactite, etc. What are the rules that unambiguously separate these from items that are designed?

---

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

---

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