ICR Sues Texas

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. The first team was incompetent/unqualified. The second was not incompetent/unqualified.
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. So, first you criticise for not having professional scientists do an evaluation, then you criticise the people evaluating it for being "scientists, not .. thinkers".
So 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. 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.

What thing was it that you read? The webpage at the Texas Citizens for Science (TCS)? If that's what you're criticizing then I think you're aiming at the wrong target. Don't you want to read something by, oh, I don't know, ICR or the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)? It isn't TCS's analysis that we're debating here.Perhaps you could look at the ICR petition. Or perhaps Dr. Paredes assessment, which begins in the middle of this document: Commissioner’s Recommendation on the Request by the Institute for Creation Research for a Certificate of Authority to Offer a Master of Science Degree in Science Education.You're criticizing the process because you disagree with the decision, but the fact of the matter is that what ICR wants to teach in Texas bears no resemblance to what accredited science programs in that state teach. To grant them accreditation would be tantamount to saying that ICR is providing an adequate science program when they're not. Graduates of an accredited science program have a right to expect that prospective employers won't guffaw at their degree.--Percy

Your kidding right? Nobody can be as unobservant as you are pretending. I have presented it in nearly 120 posts. To repeat it here again I would risk suspension.Im trying to work with Percy elsewhere to come to terms on evidence and the other specifics for that topic. I cant believe you cant understand simple explanations that have been advocated in my previous postsI pay little or no attention to someone such as yourself that hurls insults instead of responses to arguments.If its BS, then you had be prepared to dewmonstrate whyDawn Bertot

Yeah right. You couldn't even convince me and I'm a layman. In fact, you couldn't convince anybody in this thread.Please, start up your own thread with Percy, so we can discuss further. I'd love to see you get around the problem of parsimony.

Neither of these knew how to approach it logically, obviously Again which means, neither understand any logical approach. In this instance it would be like me watching a Baptist and Methodist, try and discuss the nature and purpose of baptism, both would be hinting at the true meaning but missing the mark Ill respond to the rest of your post later. Let me say at present if you fellas here are indicative of the "scientist" in that panel, my task would be much easier than I ever imaginedYou last comment here is indicative of the tactics and methods of the employed by your scientist friends, its called bulling by intimidation. When all of that bluster settles and only logic is left, one can see the true nature of the topicDawn Bertot

A reply was made between the beginning of writing this reply and its posting. Please ignore.Edited by Nij, : No reason given.

From Wikihere is perfect example of what I mean by the inability to even reason correctly. Huntard Parsimony is not A LAW to be violated. it is a general realitve and subjecttive concept or ideology that is CHOSEN or employed to try and demonstrate a point. I CANNOT violate a subjective concept, I can violate the law of gravity, something real and demonstratable. Parsimony is simply a contrived subjective ideologyParsimony is not ALWAYS true and that is the point of a subjective concept or ideology. This why some say it SHOULD NOT be elevated to general principleDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It is really difficult to take your post seriously when you can not even spell competence correctly. I am pretty sure the THECB would expect anyone in front of them to spell or at least be able to use a spell checker.I do question your competence to do what you claim.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Just like they didn't know how to approach the real world, the Bible or the law logically. No. It means that regardless of their approach, they were pretty much guaranteed to lose.
it's nothing like two guys fighting over what they think a word means. It's like one guy telling another guy what the official definition of the word is, as described by every guy that ever lived before them, and having his explanation simply rejected out of hand because the second guy disagrees with the definition. Take your time. I'm not in a rush.
However, you might be dismayed to find that scientists like us require evidence and reasoning, neither of which you have presented so far. It's very hard to beat someone using something you never bring with you.As to your quotemine, please consider it in context.
You know, the whole part where it is the conclusion and brief summary of my entire post?It is not a one-off comment. It is not intimidation. It encapsulates my whole post in one sentence. It has a reasoned chain of thought, backed by definitions and/or evidence, to hold it up. I find it ironic that you call my post bluster despite ignoring the actual content, and then say you'll leave a reply until later, but presenting your conclusion now? Very poor form, even for a creationist.

Start your thread and I'll meet you there. Let's keep this about ICR and Texas and stuff. This is the last I will say on the subject. See you in your thread.

Wow, you creation scientists are just awesome, aren't you?

In that case, ICR should try to show how their curriculum leads to productive scientists. They need to show how their curriculum ultimately leads to productive lines of research within the biological sciences.As it stands now, no scientist is using creationism or "design" to do original research in biology. Ignoring the religious underpinnings of the ICR's curriculum for the moment, there is still a gaping hole between what is being taught and what is being done in the lab. They want to teach "theories" for which there is no application or use. If nothing else, they are wasting the student's time and money as it relates to science.So why should ICR get accreditation for a science education program when what is taught has no use within science? The board could find no reason, and neither can I.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

In that case, why don't you point us to peer reviewed scientific papers where "design" is used to construct testable hypotheses that are then tested through experimentation. From my knowledge, I know of no such scientific peer reviewed paper. Therefore, there is no "design" science. So why should "design" be part of a science education curriculum? Why should ICR get accreditation for a science education program when their program is based on ideas that no scientist uses, or for that matter a program not based on science?

You know the true meaning of this also?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Already did that in Message 418, which you ignored. Your "nearly 120 posts" consist of verbose postings of pseudo-philosophical ramblings using undefined terminology, none of which makes any sense. Your response to repeated requests for definitions and clarification and for verification of our own attempts are rewording what we think you are saying are all met with more obtuse verbose postings. Your actions have made it abundantly clear that you do not wish to convince us by informing us of the wisdom of your position (which would be dazzling us with your brilliance), but rather by confusing us (which would be baffling us with your BS).You state that you are an experienced debater and have been successful at it. Then why don't we see you employ your debating skills here? Oh yeah, you are. Your approach in debate must be pretty much the same as that of the leading creationists at the ICR. The Gish Gallop, for example, consists of spewing out so many false claims in a short time that his opponent would need to take hours in educating the audience as to why those claims are false, whereas that opponent is only given 5 to 20 minutes in which to respond. Your posts do certainly look like Gish Gallops and I'm sure you employ them in verbal debates as well. Unfortunately for you, they don't work as well in a written format.Your posts also remind me of Sid Caesar's "double-talk" -- on Your Show of Shows, Sid and cast members would carry on conversations in a foreign language, but in reality they were just speaking a lot of gibberish sprinkled with some actual foreign words and with English words made to sound like a foreign word, so that the audience could still get the gist of the conversation. Similarly, what you've been posting is a lot of gibberish with some impressive-sounding words thrown in. When you do that verbally, I'm sure that it goes right over the heads of your confused audience, but it still seems to sound to them that you are really saying something, they just can't understand it. Doesn't work as well in a written forum, does it?Nor would it work on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. They have too much experience with other far better BS'ers, professional BS'ers, to be taking in by your "double-talk". Creationists and lawyers from and for the ICR. And, I'm sure, representatives from the Discovery Institute and/or related ID organizations.Also, in that same Message 418, I asked you to provide the methodology that a design-based science would need in order for scientists to reliably and objectively detect the presense of design in naturally occurring phenomena. You never provided it, even though being able to provide that methodology is fundamental to the issue and is absolutely vital for your position. I've bumped my So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY) topic, Message 222, just for you so that you can enlighten us as to the nature of that methodology.As I said before, if you refuse to provide a reasonable description of that methodology (ie, not a BS or "double-talk" reply), then that would mean that you are just blowing smoke. And if no ID writer has ever present one either, then that would show that they're just blowing smoke too, that there is no practical basis for "design science", and hence no reason to include "design science" in the classroom and every reason to not include it.Edited by dwise1, : ending