Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 6/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(3)
Message 130 of 609 (605957)
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


The argument for American schools i always prevail with is simple.
The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up.
Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc.
One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state and so unrelated to ideas of separation of religion and government.
One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.
Creationism is on soldi ground for all freedoms in schools on these issues and simply needs people to push the matter in politics and in court cases.

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 9:30 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 132 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2011 9:34 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 133 by jar, posted 02-22-2011 9:58 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 02-23-2011 11:32 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 12:13 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 12:14 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 137 by Rahvin, posted 02-23-2011 12:33 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(2)
Message 173 of 609 (606178)
02-24-2011 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Rahvin
02-23-2011 12:33 PM


Rahvin writes:
Hi Robert,
Perhaps you aren't aware of some of the clauses in the American Constitution, being that you're Canadian.
The very first Amendment to our Constitution states:
quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The bold section is what we call the "establishment clause." It means that no governmental agency (local, state, or federal) can make a law that establishes a state religion. This has been interpreted by every single Supreme Court that has needed to question the issue to also include the endorsement of any religion by the state.
Essentially, the government (including publicly run schools) must remain completely neutral on the matter of religion. The reason is simple: we are not a nation of a single religion, but rather a melting pot of many belief systems, and for our government to endorse one set of beliefs, everyone who believes otherwise would have their rights violated.
For exactly the same reason that a schoolteacher cannot require every student in the classroom to pray to Allah, or make an animal sacrifice to the Great Spirit, or tell students that no god(s) exist, that same schoolteacher cannot say that god(s) do exist, or mention Jesus, etc. Christians don;t tend to want their tax dollars endorsing Hindu or Islam or Atheism, and neither do non-Christians typically want their tax dollars being used to endorse Christianity.
Religion is a matter for families and places of worship. Schools are publicly run, and to protect the rights of all of us must remain totally neutral on the subject.
The second part of the First Amendment means that, while the government is restricted from expressing religion, individuals are not in any way. Christians are completely free to pray, worship, and read the Bible whenever and wherever they please, with the sole exception of doing so in an official capacity while being paid by public funds (like, say a teacher). Likewise, I as an Atheist am totally free to disbelieve in any religion, but if I were employed at a public school, is would not be allowed to tell students that their religious beliefs are false.
Do you see how this works?
Christian Creationism in a public school would violate my rights and the rights of my children, because it would mean my tax dollars would be used to endorse a set of religious beliefs I do not follow, and worse, it would mean endorsing those beliefs to my children. Hindu Creationism would do the same for Christians as well as Atheists like me.
To protect the religious rights of all of us, the government must remain strictly neutral and mute on the subject. That's how the freedom of religion works.
I can answer everyones same points by dealing with this post.
This is why I always prevail.
Nobody said why my post was wrong. Just repeated slogans.
The important thing of this post is INDEED the state must be neutral on religious matters.
Yet when teaching about origins and 1) banning creationism and 2) teaching ideas against creationism THEN its not neutral on some Christian etc doctrines.
Its fully involved in truth discovery. Its also involved in censorship.
If the state is teaching about the accuracy of the bible on origins then its breaking the very law used to ban the bible. If the state further censors the bible on origins while presenting itself as seeking and teaching the truth of origins then again its breaking the law it invokes.
How not?
If the state teaches Genesis is false then its not neutral!
The establishment claus was a great idea to stop the state from bugging the public on religion. Yet by teaching the bible is false or not allowing the bible as a option for origins, so again saying its false, the STATE is buging the public surely.
The thirteen colonies DID not put anything in the constitution to ban God or Genesis in schools. Absurdity for such a religious people.
The purpose was to stop interference between state and church.
Yet teaching about origins crosses the boundaries.
By teaching evolution or banning creationism the state is making a establishment of religion. Its saying its not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Rahvin, posted 02-23-2011 12:33 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2011 3:27 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 175 by jar, posted 02-24-2011 9:35 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 176 by ringo, posted 02-24-2011 10:22 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 10:42 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 02-25-2011 5:51 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 226 of 609 (606733)
02-28-2011 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
02-24-2011 3:27 AM


The law is the law.
Sensible or denying the truth its still the law.
No one could teach YEC though it was proven true as long as the present law is in place.
Yec is banned today by this law despite being the truth.
My greater point is that there is no such law in the constitution dealing with school subjects.
There is no actual connection between church/state relations and everything the state pays for.
It was not the founders intention. Absurd.
The people simply should have the power to vote up or down these matters.
Creationism is historic, popular, and intellectually solid.
no problem to returning it to the classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2011 3:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2011 5:26 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 232 by jar, posted 02-28-2011 9:14 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 234 by Coyote, posted 02-28-2011 9:47 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 243 by Taq, posted 02-28-2011 4:46 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 227 of 609 (606734)
02-28-2011 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by ringo
02-24-2011 10:22 AM


ringo writes:
Robert Byers writes:
If the state teaches Genesis is false then its not neutral!
If the state taught that Treasure Island is true but War and Peace is fiction, that would not be neutral. If it teaches that both are fiction, that is neutral.
Similarly, teaching that Genesis is fiction - i.e. it doesn't match our observations of the real world - is not a breach of neutrality.
Neutrality means not treating one book differently from all of the others. That isn't really what you want, is it?
Nope. its not taught based on the use of law.
Nothing to do with whether its true.
In fact saying its not true, these Christian doctrines, is illegal as some posters here have said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ringo, posted 02-24-2011 10:22 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ringo, posted 02-28-2011 9:41 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 229 of 609 (606738)
02-28-2011 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by NoNukes
02-24-2011 10:42 AM


I insist. Teaching Christian doctrines are wrong is illegal if the very law invoked to ban creationism is about neutrality and non interference.
Its logic.
Louisiana ain't right about everything.
Creationism is only indirectly dealing with religion. in fact it deals with ideas about origins.
Banning it is saying its false.
Saying its false is illegal.
Here we go again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2011 10:42 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2011 5:32 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 231 by Huntard, posted 02-28-2011 5:37 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 235 by jar, posted 02-28-2011 10:01 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 236 by bluescat48, posted 02-28-2011 12:57 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 239 by frako, posted 02-28-2011 1:44 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 254 of 609 (607311)
03-03-2011 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by jar
02-28-2011 10:01 AM


These are Christian doctrines for many and historically for more.
Your still trying to say the law is irrelevant.
Its the law that God/Genesis can not be taught as true or options where subjects about origins are taught.
The law is invoked here to fight creationism entering the schools by the legislature.
Nothing to do with decisions about the accuracy of creationism(s). in fact the state couldn't legally make a decision about biblical accuracy.
by the law it invokes.
Yet in fact in banning creationism and teaching evolution it twice does in fact break this law.
Somebody call a cop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by jar, posted 02-28-2011 10:01 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 03-03-2011 9:24 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 265 by Briterican, posted 03-03-2011 2:03 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 255 of 609 (607312)
03-03-2011 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2011 1:25 PM


no. come on.
If one is teaching a subject on reality of origins there is nothing indirect goin on.
Its right to the point.
The state is teaching the bible is false by discussing origins with conclusions and then 1, banning the bible 2, teaching evolution etc which contradicts religion for many.
its impossible to get around the logic here.
its impossible to say the founders put in the constitution, back in the day, anything to ban the truth of God/Genesis as they would of believed it.
just this century was it discovered in the constitution.
anyways teaching the facts of origins only indirectly touches on religion. Just can't be helped.
Yet to say its untrue by state dictate is UnAmerican, illegal, and silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2011 1:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 6:20 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 263 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 11:58 AM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 256 of 609 (607313)
03-03-2011 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by ringo
02-28-2011 1:54 PM


The law doesn't say Genesis is illegal. Its the constitution here being used on a line of reasoning since WW11.
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.
I ask all posters here WHERE is my reasoning failing???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 02-28-2011 1:54 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Coyote, posted 03-03-2011 4:56 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 258 by frako, posted 03-03-2011 5:01 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 6:11 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 262 by ringo, posted 03-03-2011 9:29 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 264 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 12:02 PM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 267 by NoNukes, posted 03-03-2011 3:23 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(2)
Message 271 of 609 (607954)
03-08-2011 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 6:11 AM


Dr Adequate writes:
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.
Implicitly, perhaps.
I ask all posters here WHERE is my reasoning failing???
Well, for one thing, you overlook the legal concept of secular legislative purpose. There is a good reason for at least implicitly teaching that creationism is rubbish, namely that it is. Similarly there would be a good reason for teaching that it was true if it was true, namely that it was true.
Again, I invite you to imagine a sect that taught that two twos are five. Would that sect, by its existence, make it unconstitutional to teach the multiplication table?
Not implicit and not perhaps. Its explicit that in conclusions about some origins Genesis is wrong and further being banned is a state comment that its wrong.
Any court claim can not get around this equation that in a subject about discovery of truth a BANNING is state opinion its not true.
Yes that sect would make it unconstitutional. Yes thats the law as invented in the 1900's.
Reverse. if the sect taught that two twos are four and the state taught it was five likewise the sect stuff would be banned.
This is happening today.
The law is not applied as it claims its intended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 6:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Son, posted 03-08-2011 11:37 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 287 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-08-2011 11:37 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 289 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 11:48 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(2)
Message 272 of 609 (607955)
03-08-2011 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by jar
03-03-2011 9:24 AM


Re: why the Creationists drive people away from Christianity
jar writes:
Robert Byers writes:
These are Christian doctrines for many and historically for more.
Your still trying to say the law is irrelevant.
Its the law that God/Genesis can not be taught as true or options where subjects about origins are taught.
The law is invoked here to fight creationism entering the schools by the legislature.
Nothing to do with decisions about the accuracy of creationism(s). in fact the state couldn't legally make a decision about biblical accuracy.
by the law it invokes.
Yet in fact in banning creationism and teaching evolution it twice does in fact break this law.
Somebody call a cop.
They are not Christian doctrines for MOST of the established Christian churches.
No one has to teach that Creationism is wrong, all of the facts and evidence shows that Biblical Creationism is simply Dogma and false doctrine, lies perpetrated by the Christian Cult of ignorance.
Creationism is banned from science classes because it is false, not because it is religion.
Your problem is that when the facts are taught and the evidence examined the kids realize that what they had been taught based on the Bible is false. If the folk that taught them were so wrong about the stuff that is easy to check like evolution and age of the earth and that there was no Biblical flood, why would they believe any of the other stuff they were taught?
Your just plain wrong.
its banned because of the law. They say it. Posters here argue it.
First the law must be revoked before it can and you can claim creationism is banned because of its lack of substance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by jar, posted 03-03-2011 9:24 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by jar, posted 03-08-2011 8:50 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 288 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-08-2011 11:44 AM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(2)
Message 273 of 609 (607956)
03-08-2011 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by ringo
03-03-2011 9:29 AM


ringo writes:
Robert Byers writes:
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.
Again, the law excludes all religious viewpoints equally. If scientists discover that Genesis - or any other book - is untruthful, the law doesn't ban those discoveries from the classroom.
Equally or not. Excluding Christian, for many, doctrines , by law, of origins in subjects insisting they are about faithful processes and conclusions upon truth in some origin issue MEANS the state has officially said some christian doctrines are false.
Official and so illegal by the very law it invokes to censor same doctrines.
I think I'm right here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by ringo, posted 03-03-2011 9:29 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by ringo, posted 03-08-2011 9:47 AM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(2)
Message 274 of 609 (607957)
03-08-2011 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Taq
03-03-2011 11:58 AM


Taq writes:
The state is teaching the bible is false . . .
No, they aren't. The Bible is never mentioned in science class.
its impossible to say the founders put in the constitution, back in the day, anything to ban the truth of God/Genesis as they would of believed it.
No one is banning the Bible. Children are still free to attend any church they want and read any book that they want.
The only ban here is on the actions of the government, not the citizen. The founders clearly stated that state and religion are to be separate.
anyways teaching the facts of origins only indirectly touches on religion. Just can't be helped.
Teaching that circulating thunderstorms produce lightning touches on belief that Zeus makes lightning. Should we ban this from science class as well?
Again. The bible is being said to be false as its denied as a option for conclusions on origins that by definition mean the bible is wrong. Thats two things.
The state by law is saying the bible is false on some conclusions otherwise they would only be saying they are prohibited from teaching Genesis because of law regardless of whether its true.
A absurdity in subjects based on finding the truth not just as a conclusion but where process is emphasized.
Wow.
The banning is about school classes and not home sweet home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Taq, posted 03-03-2011 11:58 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by dwise1, posted 03-08-2011 3:24 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(2)
Message 275 of 609 (607958)
03-08-2011 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Briterican
03-03-2011 2:03 PM


Briterican writes:
Robert Byers writes:
Your still trying to say the law is irrelevant.
Its the law that God/Genesis can not be taught as true or options where subjects about origins are taught.
The law is invoked here to fight creationism entering the schools by the legislature.
Nothing to do with decisions about the accuracy of creationism(s). in fact the state couldn't legally make a decision about biblical accuracy.
by the law it invokes.
Yet in fact in banning creationism and teaching evolution it twice does in fact break this law.
Somebody call a cop.
It is clear from your comments that you would support the introduction of creationist teachings into public schools. Would it be correct, however, to say that you would only support the Christian origin myth? Why not the Hindu, or Roman origin myths? Is the Christian origin myth supported by a greater body of evidence than the others?
I'm concerned that you seem unable to grasp the difference between evidentially-based material and faith-based material. I think it is safe to assume that you would not want your children being taught the Hindu origin myth as though it was on all-fours with the Christian origin myth. Please correct me if I am wrong.
What I'd like to understand better is this: If you seriously believe that this specific origin myth (Genesis) deserves equal time in the classroom with evidentially-based material, surely you must accept that, in the spirit of fairness, the many other faith-based origin myths (which many millions of people presently adhere to) should also be included?
If you work through this chain of logic, surely you can see why the Christian origin myth does NOT belong in the science classroom. Put simply, if it deserves time there, then so do multitudes of other unsupported assertions, leading to a colossal waste of time that would be better spent on the examination of tangible, evidentially supported material.
Chains of logic here are not getting your side to reach to the other side.
First things first.
The silly law invented in the 1900's has to go.
then its up to the people through the legislature to decide about their schools and kids and realtionship with everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Briterican, posted 03-03-2011 2:03 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Briterican, posted 03-08-2011 1:53 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(2)
Message 276 of 609 (607959)
03-08-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by NoNukes
03-03-2011 3:23 PM


NoNukes writes:
Robert Byers writes:
If one bans genesis on a subject where the object is truthful discovery of conclusions then one is saying GEnesis is untruthful.
I ask all posters here WHERE is my reasoning failing???
Your reasoning is off in a number of places. Here's my take on one of them.
Your premise about what the object is is not correct.
Science is about uncovering knowledge through application of the scientific method. It is not about uncovering truth using Ouija Boards, prayer and fasting, reading the Bible, or mystical divination even if those particular things happen to work.
Even without the first amendment, reading Genesis or the Prose Edda would not be proper lines of inquiry about anything in a K-12 science class.
Science class is never about process only but about conclusions.
Its really conclusion class on matters of natural history that claims to employ a higher standard of investigation and so a higher confidence in conclusions drawn.
Anyways its still the law that banns creationism and not a accusation that its not science or rather a equal standard of investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by NoNukes, posted 03-03-2011 3:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2011 5:48 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 278 by frako, posted 03-08-2011 6:29 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 279 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2011 7:47 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 284 by ringo, posted 03-08-2011 9:58 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-08-2011 10:36 AM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 11:52 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 309 of 609 (608384)
03-10-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by ringo
03-08-2011 9:47 AM


ringo writes:
Robert Byers writes:
Equally or not. Excluding Christian, for many, doctrines , by law, of origins in subjects insisting they are about faithful processes and conclusions upon truth in some origin issue MEANS the state has officially said some christian doctrines are false.
The point of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the doctrines of one sect from being placed above the doctrines of other sects - equality of religion. The application of that clause by the courts excludes all religious doctrines from public schools.
Science itself tries to exclude falsehoods from the science classroom, regardless of whether those falsehoods are Christian doctrines or not.
What we're talking about here is an attempt by some Christian sects to have their doctrines taught as science, excluding the opinions/doctrines of other Christian and non-Christian sects. That is what violates the Establishment Clause.
Nope.
The establishment clause is simply to protect religion from state interference or the state from being controled by some religion to the loss of others. Simple.
The state and church are not to bug each other on important matters.
Its not a purpose to stop a sect but a purpose to protect all sects.
Your words make a motive that would be strange to the early American people.
its a good explanation to say there is meant to be a separation of church and state.
A clear objective then and now.
Yet in origin subjects the state is teaching against sects beliefs and banning rebuttal which is a second act of state interference.
Anyays they never meant schools were included in the "state". They are just paid for by the state. So are Army chaplins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ringo, posted 03-08-2011 9:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2011 3:35 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 319 by ringo, posted 03-10-2011 9:49 AM Robert Byers has not replied
 Message 320 by Taq, posted 03-10-2011 11:28 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024