Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICR Sues Texas
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 481 of 549 (581081)
09-13-2010 1:41 PM


Summary
From the opening post:
ICR claims it met or exceeded the 21 Standards of Certificates of Authority. In fact, ICR did not meet several of those standards which was the basis of the THECB’s refusal to grant the Certificate of Authority. Three of those unmet standards were faculty qualifications, the curriculum, and academic freedom of the faculty and students. The standard of judging these things is comparison with other Texas institutions of higher learning that offer the same Master of Science Degree in Science Education. ICR was in no way comparable to other institutions, which was the original THECB justification for denial of the certification.
Nothing more needs to be added. They are not doing science, so they can't award degrees in science.
Period.

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

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 482 of 549 (581087)
09-13-2010 2:22 PM


Summary
On the ICR issue:
It is good to see that Texas is for upholding standards.
On the diversion:
Regrettably, the thread was taken off track with a long series of vapid posts. Thread closure is overdue.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 483 of 549 (581106)
09-13-2010 5:42 PM


Hi Moose! Thanks for helping out!
I would like to see the thread remain open for discussion of ICR's efforts to gain accreditation for their program.
While we haven't been able to gain a clean understanding of Dawn Bertot's ideas, we can see that they don't really have much to do with ICR or their accreditation efforts. I think Dawn should propose a new topic to discuss his ideas over at Proposed New Topics. Any further discussion in this thread should be solely ICR-related.
--Percy

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 484 of 549 (581143)
09-13-2010 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 11:56 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
The only observations that either of us can supply is those that are observable, in your case change and in my case appearent design.
In this case, we can observe evolution producing change in populations in the here and now. No one has ever observed this supposed designer doing anything. So I have observations of the actual mechanism. You do not.
Since it is not necessary for you to show the strating point of your process, nor that it was or is eternal in character and makeup, evidence would not require me to supply those observations outside of the observation of design, to know that it is an equal and very real probabality in the explanation of things.
But it is necessary to demonstrate the mechanism in action, and short of that you have no evidence. All you have is assertion. If you can't observe the mechanism in action then you can not claim that it can produce anything.
That is the problem here. You are confusing two things: evidence and observation. They are not the same thing. Evidence is observations anticipated by the hypothesis. You have no hypothesis, therefore you have no evidence. What does Design hypothesize for the pattern of ERV homology amongst primates? Anything? What does Design hypothesize for the mixture of features in hominid fossils over the last 5 million years? Anything?
Let's cut to the meat of the argument. You claim that because none of us were there at the beginning that any explanation, no matter how unevidenced or absurd, is on equal ground with testable explanations backed by mountains of evidence. Am I right on this?
So let's see how that would work in a murder trial. The prosecution presents DNA evidence, fingerprint evidence, fiber evidence, shoe print evidence, palm print evidence, hair evidence, and a slew of other empirical, science based evidence linking the defendant to the murder victim. The only problem is that no one witnessed the crime. What is your defense? Since no one actually witnessed the crime it is equally likely that a leprechaun planted the evidence and designed it so that it looked as if the defendant committed the crime. What is your evidence for this claim? The very evidence that the prosecution presented, all of which, you claim, is completely consistent with a leprechaun.
On top of this absurdity you would also add the following. Since no one knows the origin of DNA it can not be used as evidence. On top of that, no one knows the origin of life so no one can ever claim that a human created that fingerprint since we can't know where the first life came from. With the shoe print it gets even worse because we can't demonstrate where the matter in the shoe came from, nor the laws which allow the molecules in the shoes to interact.
So, in the end, a trick playing leprechaun is on equal ground as an explanation as to why the defendant's DNA and bloody fingerprints are found all over the murder victim. Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 11:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 2:47 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 485 of 549 (581144)
09-13-2010 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 9:26 PM


Re: Evidence
Very verbose but simplistic. The only fact here under discussion is the fact that we both the evo and the theist operate on the exact same playing field
No we don't. The theory of evolution makes very specific testable predictions. The theory of evolution explains the nested hierarchy found in genomes, amongst living species, and in the fossil record. The ToE can explain why apes and humans have the same ERV's at the same locations in their genomes, and why the human and orangutan shared ERV are more divergent than the same ERV is between humans and chimps. Design can not explain any of this, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Evolution makes testable predictions, which makes it science. Design does not make testable predictions, which is why it isn't science. Until you show us how Design makes testable predictions you can not claim that we are on the same playing field.
Its not a theory that there is limited information and evidence on both sides of the coin.
Evidence is predicted observations made by a hypothesis. Since you don't have any testable predictions you don't have any evidence.
Its not a theory that neither conclusion drawn by theist or evos can be proved.
Evolution can be tested. Design can not. Therefore, Evolution is science while Design is not. Guess which one belongs in science class? Guess why ICR was denied accreditation for running a science department?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 9:26 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 2:35 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9975
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 486 of 549 (581146)
09-14-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Dawn Bertot
09-12-2010 9:41 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Is it true that all the information and evidence gathered from evo and the design theory, actuall get you no closer to an explanation of he How things became to be inthefirst place. Yes or No
No more so than Germ theory does, but then Germ theory is not trying to explain how the universe came about, nor how the first germ came about. All theories are limited to a subset of all observations, and for evolution this subset is how species change over time. That's it.
So if Germ theory is not capable of telling us where the universe came from should we reject the theory that germs cause infectious diseases? If Atomic theory can not tell us where atoms came from should we throw out all the information we have learned about chemistry through Atomic theory?
Why is it that any and all theories in science must account for the beginning of the universe, according to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-12-2010 9:41 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 2:24 AM Taq has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 487 of 549 (581151)
09-14-2010 12:10 AM


Proof in science
Its not a theory that neither conclusion drawn by theist or evos can be proved.
Dawn, why do you keep whining about "proof?" It just exposes your lack of knowledge about science. Science does not deal in proof!
Science deals with evidence.
In the case of evolution, scientific evidence has reached the level of a theory (as defined by scientists).
Theism or creationism have failed to provide evidence, and have consequently failed to reach the level of a scientific theory.
All your complaining and whining won't change that.
This is why the ICR can't get accreditation to teach science--they are not doing science! They are doing religious apologetics. The two are entirely different, and in fact they are opposites.
Religious apologists are in fact anti-science. They want to substitute mythology, superstition, ancient texts, and the like for empirical evidence. They have to ignore, misrepresent, or deny any evidence that inconveniently contradicts their religious beliefs.
No wonder they can't get accredited to teach science!

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 2:21 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 488 of 549 (581154)
09-14-2010 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by Dr Adequate
09-13-2010 3:41 AM


Re: Rules of evidence
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.
Finally some daylight, for you at the end of your narrow tunnel. If it does teach this then it teaches design, by indirect implication.
Now pay close attention. Designs conclusion or the idea of design is not derived from a conjecture of anything at all. It is not derived by even the idea of design.
It is derived from the observable order that is demonstratable, hence design is established not by conjecture, but by evidence which you now admit.. I dont need to speculate about anything for that to be nearly direct evidence as evidence goes
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.
No conjecture is required to establish what is demonstratable as evidential. I dont need to conjecture design, when reality does it for me. Your mixing up design with a supernatural being. You have just proved my point. Thank you
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-13-2010 3:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 489 of 549 (581156)
09-14-2010 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 487 by Coyote
09-14-2010 12:10 AM


Re: Proof in science
Dawn, why do you keep whining about "proof?" It just exposes your lack of knowledge about science. Science does not deal in proof!
Science deals with evidence.
In the case of evolution, scientific evidence has reached the level of a theory (as defined by scientists).
Theism or creationism have failed to provide evidence, and have consequently failed to reach the level of a scientific theory.
All your complaining and whining won't change that.
Since this is not even close to what I am saying, it follows that I am not whining or complaining about anything
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2010 12:10 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 490 of 549 (581157)
09-14-2010 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Taq
09-14-2010 12:06 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Why is it that any and all theories in science must account for the beginning of the universe, according to you?
You simply dont understand the road of reason and evidence, direct and indirect implication and the such like. If you did you would not ask sucha silly question
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Taq, posted 09-14-2010 12:06 AM Taq has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 491 of 549 (581158)
09-14-2010 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by Taq
09-13-2010 11:53 PM


Re: Evidence
Evolution makes testable predictions, which makes it science. Design does not make testable predictions, which is why it isn't science. Until you show us how Design makes testable predictions you can not claim that we are on the same playing field.
Your statement is a testament to the fact that you are wearing blinders, which were given to you by people as limited in understanding of evidence as yourself
As funny as it sounds, design (as a concept) doesnt make anything, from an evidential standpoint. However, nature, matter and the rules it follows makes testable predictions, and you can test those predictions, which is evidence of design as simply design as evidence, not a supernatural being
All that is needed to establish design as evidential, is the obdervable, testable and predictable order
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by Taq, posted 09-13-2010 11:53 PM Taq has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 492 of 549 (581159)
09-14-2010 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by Taq
09-13-2010 11:45 PM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
So I have observations of the actual mechanism. You do not.
You do realize the way we establish evidence is that we use the same mechanism, correct
If you can't observe the mechanism in action then you can not claim that it can produce anything.
I can observe the mechanism in action and what it produces COMPLEX ORDER
Let's cut to the meat of the argument. You claim that because none of us were there at the beginning that any explanation, no matter how unevidenced or absurd, is on equal ground with testable explanations backed by mountains of evidence. Am I right on this?
Why would you imply that my positon is unevidenced and absurd, seeing that I have gone to such great lenghts to demonstrate it is not So No to the first one and Yes to the second question
So, in the end, a trick playing leprechaun is on equal ground as an explanation as to why the defendant's DNA and bloody fingerprints are found all over the murder victim. Right?
A simple question here to remove the inaplicabilty of your whole illustration and show how it is not valid as an analogy.
Did someone or something commit this crime? Yes or No?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Taq, posted 09-13-2010 11:45 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by Huntard, posted 09-14-2010 2:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 499 by Taq, posted 09-14-2010 6:27 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 493 of 549 (581160)
09-14-2010 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Dawn Bertot
09-14-2010 2:47 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Did someone or something commit this crime? Yes or No?
Yes. The magic leprechaun. What? Why couldn't it? The observations made are consistent with a magic leprechaun doing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 2:47 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 3:04 AM Huntard has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 494 of 549 (581162)
09-14-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by Huntard
09-14-2010 2:55 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Yes. The magic leprechaun. What? Why couldn't it? The observations made are consistent with a magic leprechaun doing it.
Youve simply replaced the observable order and the word we call order with the words, magic leprechan, its still just observable evidential reality
His illustration in the story over shoots what is actually available to us in our reality, concerning reality and matter. All that is KNOWN is that there is change and order, both are observable evidence of only two logical possibilites
But both are observable
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by Huntard, posted 09-14-2010 2:55 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Huntard, posted 09-14-2010 3:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 498 by Taq, posted 09-14-2010 6:23 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 495 of 549 (581163)
09-14-2010 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by Dawn Bertot
09-14-2010 3:04 AM


Re: For anybody who doesn't see the relevance
Dawn Bertot writes:
Youve simply replaced the observable order and the word we call order with the words, magic leprechan, its still just observable evidential reality
And you do the same with your "design".
His illustration in the story over shoots what is actually available to us in our reality, concerning reality and matter.
And you do the same with your "design".
All that is KNOWN is that there is change and order, both are observable evidence of only two logical possibilites.
No, only 1 logical possibility, the other one violates parsimony. If we allow for the violation of parsimony, then an infinite number of "logical" possibilities become available.
But both are observable
No they aren't. You yourself have said that design is not obervable, mearly the order that results from it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Dawn Bertot, posted 09-14-2010 3:04 AM Dawn Bertot 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