ICR Sues Texas

I have reviewed all of those posts.You provide no evidence. You provide no rules. You do frequently assert that you are using a rule, but no recognizable rule is presented. All I see are repetitions of your worthless strawman argument (about origins).

Message 460 appears to be a replica of Message 458, to which I have already responded.

No.The information that comes from study of the natural world provides several productive lines of research for determining origins.There is no such thing as design theory. In science, "theory" is a well-defined term, and the nonsense you have been feeding us is nowhere close to a scientific theory. It is religion couched in a few scientific terms, and an attempt to use logic. The logic turns out to be circular. You have been told time and time again that science deals with facts and explanations (theories), not proof. If you want proof try the local preachers. They all have proof of their claims, even though those claims almost always differ. Or try the local bars, that would probably be more useful.Since science does not deal with proof, there is no "provable conclusion" for origins. There are some productive lines of investigation. Design "theory" has not been shown to be among them. Thanks, you are being simple enough as it is. Sorry, no. Science uses facts and theories. What you are using is dogma and scripture couched in scientific terms (badly), and flawed logic. Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense. Your evidence and conclusions are so confused and non-scientific that we have been trying for hundreds of posts to make out what you are trying to tell us. As far as many of us can tell, you are just repeating the same nonsense with no attempt to provide any evidence or to clarify what appears to be severely flawed logic.Nonsense repeated over and over does not get any closer to evidence.

---

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

You asked for simple rules of evidence I gave examples in 443. I would suggest you go there and deal with them, istead of complaining. If you cannot or will not, I will accepte that as defeatAny rule of evidence can be any demonstratable fact. I have done that there, have at it Did you expect me to believe you would agree with me. Your wasting your time complaining when you could actually be responding to those simple rules of observation. Hop to itDawn Bertot

Lets start with something simple for you, you asked for examples of rules of evidence I provided it
I am starting to assume all you can do is talk about why something is invalid, I suggest actually going and quoting them then showing why. My guess is that you dont have a clueof how to do this

Look, Dawn, it's very simple, everyome on this thread thinks you haven't provided any rules of evidence.LEt's remedy this here and now. Fill in this list and we can all discuss them, instead of you saying time and time again that you have provided them, and everybody else saying you haven't. Just complete the list and everything will be clear:The rules of evidence are

1. Rule 1
2. Rule 2
3. Rule 3

etc.Thanks, it will clear things up immensely.

Take it slow and I will break it down for you. Again you are assuming I am talking about design, DIRECTLY, I am not. Observing the designer is not possible, but this does not mean that from an evidential standpoint by observation of the obeyed laws in nature that it is not possible, it most certainly isObserving the entirity and totality of evolution as it is described and hypothsized is not possible, but this does not mean from an observable and evidental standpoint that is DID NOT happen as described, you simply dont have all the information you need to prove it absolutleyObserving the entirity and totality of the design principle is not possible absolutley, but this does not mean from an observable and evidential standpoint one cannot see the harmonious, orderly and coherent set of laws set in motion somehow, operatingneither theory, even the TOE is provable absolutley but both are clearly demonstratabletry and think of another theory that will allow such conclusions from both reality, reason and physical data, there ARE NO OTHERSYou draw your conclusions of change, natural selcection and mutation from observable dataI draw my conclusions from the same source, by simple observation of these same materialsBoth of these conclusions are provable, but the source is not. Since both change and laws ore provable and there is no other choices, both should be taught inthe science classroomDawn Bertot

Rule 1. the concept of order and laws in nature is obtainable the exact same way the concept of change and natural selection are obtainedRule 2 Neither the TOE or design can be proved absolutley from these observations, but the same rules are used to obtain that informationRule 3 the information, the rules, the evidence and the conclusions of each, while not provable is demonstrable from, the method of extraction, the observable evidence and (Now watch), the only two logical, physical and possible explanations as to the HOW of things, are here in the first placeRule 4. Since all of the above are demonstratable rules of evidence concerning these matters and both use the same method, both should be taught in the science classroom"lets remedy this here and now", thats funnyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

The fact that nature is orderly and obeys the laws of nature is taught in the science classroom. Because this is, as you admit, demonstrable in just the same way that evolution is.The conjecture that a supernatural being can and did break those laws and violate the natural order is not demonstrable and contravenes what is, as you admit, demonstrable, and so is not taught in the science classroom.

Hmm, those don't look like "rules of evidence" to me. When I think of "rules of evidence", I thinnk about stuff like "evidence must be repeatable", "evidence must be observable by all in the same way" and stuff like that. I fail to see how any of those could be called a rule, that can be applied to different situations. That's what rules are, guidelines to be applicable to different situations, not assertions about one particular case.Let's take a look at the individual "rules": Change and natural selection are due to those laws. I fail to see how this "rule" is applicable in any other situation but this one. You mention the "rules" here again, but have not given any "rules". Also, nothing in science can be proved absolutely, does this mean we should just teach any idea about a particular phenomenom? Take the sun for example, it sure looks like it is going around the earth, I don't feel like the earth is moving. Should we teach geocentrism again? It can be drawn from the same observations as heliocentrism, afterall. But one of them violates parsimony (design), which is a rule of science (see, this rule, parsimony, can be applied to any situation, not just this case, this is why it is a rule, and your "rules" are not). What "rules"? Those are not rules. How do we apply these to other cases? Also, again, one violates parsimony, and therefore should not be taught.

a theory or hypothesis of desighn must account for all known facts before it is accepted by the sience communityhow does the theory of creation or desighn account for:Gill Slits in Human Fetuses
unusable eyes deep under the skin of the Proteus anguinus
the remains of a tail in humans
and all the other remenents of organs in other species that where discardedif we where created and designed why would the desighner put remains of organs in the species that does not have the oportunity to use them.

Hello Frako, I think your questions allow for a great opportunity to demonstrate one of my points to Dawn: It was designed that way. It was designed that way. It was designed that way. It was designed that way.You see, anything can be said to be designed. It therefore doesn't add an explantion to anyhting, and therefore, should not be taught as science. Also, in the way Dawn is presenting it, it violates parsimony. We don't know, the designer works in mysterious ways. Or at least, that is a viable answer when considering "design". It's also a useless answer, and precisely why "design" shouldn't be taught as science.

Nonsense. In fact, Message 443 was not even your post.

Well, no, you had not provided recognizable rules at the time you made that post (the one to which I am replying).I see that you have since posted some "rules" in Message 473. I'll note that others are commenting on why those "rules" are problematic. For the present I won't add my comments, but will instead watch to see how you respond to those who have commented.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Apparently the argument has come down to some sort of ICR does/doesn't do science thing.My understanding is that the Texas board rejected the ICR because the ICR program concept is either not broad enough to cover the range it should and/or is too much in conflict with mainstream scientific thought.If the ICR is going to either ignore or reject biological evolution and the old Earth, then the judgment that they don't wish to teach proper is valid. That is the mainstream science perception, and even on the slim chance it turns out to be wrong, that currently still is the perception that counts. Someones outside of the mainstream (aka religious) perception does not get to define what science is. PERIOD.I am posting this via the admin mode, and normally replies to moderation messages are strongly discouraged. In this situation, however, I do invite others to work off of my comments to each come up with one final closing statement.Adminnemooseus