ICR Response to Dover Ruling

[Sticks]

Into my E-mail inbox dropped the latest ICR Newsletter. I contacted them some time ago and am now on their distribution list. FWIW

Anyhue they have come up with a response to the victory won by opponents of ID.

From the ICR Website (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2609)

Abstract
On December 20, 2005, U.S. District Judge John Jones issued a 139-page wide-ranging, detailed, sometimes angry, sometimes mistaken diatribe against creation thinking in any form.

I post this for the sheer interest of those who oppose ID being taught in science classes, to see their take on it. (Even I have suggested that this is not the way to go, if you have it or creationism, put it in humanities where students can learn about other creation stories of other cultures. I would have loved to have heard about the aboriginy dream time, but I digress).

It seems that ICR is a bit ambivalent about ID

[gwiz]

They don't think there is any evidence for evolutionary processes happening today. What about ring species? What about drug resistant bacteria?

Supernatural causes are not science because an explanation that can explain anything by saying "God did it" is no explanation at all, it doesn't get you anywhere.

[Wolverine]

It seems that ICR is a bit ambivalent about ID

That, again, is because they wish to see literal creationism taught. They dislike ID because it doesn't specifically identify "the designer" as God.

Everything science observes today mitigates against naturalistic origins.

:rolleyes:

That and the remainder of the article = waste of electrons.

[Sticks]

This time ICR will have to speak for themselves, I prefer to reference another group which has more affiliation with our church grouping. It reduces the potential for running foul of internal church politics, which I will spare you as it explaining it would infringe the religion rule.
I did hear an answer to the problem of bacterial resistance in 1987, but not being a microbiologist I cannot really evaluate it, unless you really want this I will hang fire. This thread is to be just about ICR's response to a specific ruling.

The only expansion I would think legit would be to see what other creationist institutions are saying, but I suspect that interested parties here may already know their responses

Edit add the bit in red and correct a single to a plural

[mid]

if you have it or creationism, put it in humanities where students can learn about other creation stories of other cultures. I would have loved to have heard about the aboriginy dream time, but I digress

It is a digression, I agree, but I do think that room should be made in the humanities for this. I'll defend current scientific thinking on evolution along with the rest of the forum, but I do think that knowledge of the teachings of the world's major religions (whether you believe them or not) is vital to understanding what goes on in the world.

[Sticks]

It is a digression, I agree, but I do think that room should be made in the humanities for this. I'll defend current scientific thinking on evolution along with the rest of the forum, but I do think that knowledge of the teachings of the world's major religions (whether you believe them or not) is vital to understanding what goes on in the world.

I would go along with that. I found comparative religion quite an interesting topic and then I sub-specialisted in "cults" some years ago. Some people in the faith world get so caught up in tramline thinking, that when they encounter another faith variant, they are liable to get caught out, especially if some groups use similar terms, but might have totally different meanings. Understanding where the other side is coming from can help facilitate either better relations or in some cases protect the vulnerable from being ensnared in dangerous groups.

But any hue, we now return this thread back to the topic of ICR's reaction to the Dover ruling

[gwiz]

OK, back to the topic. The basis of the argument appears to be that we have no means of knowing if the processes that science observes in action today were the same in the past, therefore saying that God/the designer intervened 6000 years or whenever ago is a valid scientific hypothesis. The problem is that there are a lot of natural clocks that science uses to date past events, radio-carbon and potassium, tree-rings, ice cores, etc, and they nearly all go back a lot farther than 6000 years and are in general agreement with each other. So the earth/universe must have been created with these clocks already set, or they must have run at very peculiar rates in the past. If the creator could do this, then anything is possible, and any past event or process is unverifiable. The universe could have been created a minute ago with this post half written. This is unscientific because it is impossible to disprove.

[Sticks]

A slight broadening of this topic, although I did flag this.

Apologetics Press reaction to the Dover ruling (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2800)

[gwiz]

The answer to these questions is a resounding “No!,”
News to me, where do they get their information from?

Usual confusion of evolution, origin of life and the big bang, claims that only atheists hold these true, etc.

[LurchGS]

ye gods, what a mishmash of misunderstood science!

and, IIRC misquotes.. 'life only arises from life' - shouldn't that be 'like only arises from like'? meaning that a hunk of dead meat won't suddenly give off flies...

[TriangleMan]

It seems that ICR is a bit ambivalent about ID
ICR promotes young-earth creationism, but I believe that most ID proponents do not, so there are aspects of ID that ICR proabaly does not agree with.

[Wolverine]

A slight broadening of this topic, although I did flag this.

Apologetics Press reaction to the Dover ruling (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2800)

That article is easily the most nonsensical I've seen on the subject. Predictably, they misunderstand and/or misrepresent not only evolution, but science itself (among other things).

[mid]

Organic evolution contends that man is here simply because of beneficial mutations and natural selection that occurred over millions of years, as the result of a cosmological accident. Does this sound like a divine plan for the creation of man? Does this theory have even a hint of purpose for humanity? To suggest that organic evolution does not conflict with the existence of a divine creator is ludicrous at best.

So we've moved beyond quibbling over little details like flagellum to arguing against the whole idea with an argument from incredulity. I wouldn't create all the myriad forms of life on the planet by an evolutionary process rather than all the fun of sitting down to devise 350,000 different species of beetle by hand, therefore God couldn't do it with such efficiency and panache.

Hmm. I'm with Wolverine on this one.

[LurchGS]

Does the bible even hint that man has a purpose (besides beget and beget and overpopulate)? It's been a long time since I read it, and I just don't recall any such statement.

And, as somebody pointed out, evolution doesn't address how it all got started - just what happened AFTER it got started. Personally, I think that umpty-ump million years of energy-bathed organic soup mixing around just about had to produce 'life' - but if you want to assume somebody stuck his oar in, be my guest.