Institution for Creation Research

Tired of wandering the lawless wilds of the AC&A forum? Have a friendly chat in our cozy, velvet-covered civility lounge. Alcohol not permitted, only the Kenny G button works on the jukebox. All undesirable types will be quietly escorted out the back door.

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby sayak » Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:29 pm

Stacie Cook wrote:Here is an article written by someone I know nothing about, other than his stated title and schooling mentioned at the bottom of the article. How am I to know if he is a quack or not? University of Toronto- is that a reputable school? I don't know...

Is the ICR research lab not considered a place of research?

http://www.icr.org/article/myths-regard ... on-dating/
A quote from the article:
"Creationists are not so much interested in debunking radiocarbon as we are in developing a proper understanding of it to answer many of our own questions regarding the past. "

I see how this could be interpreted as 'we are developing things to fit our mold'.

Are there no evolutionists that do the same?



* At time of publications, Dr. Aardsma was Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Department in the ICR Graduate School. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto doing research in accelerator mass spectrometry, a technique now widely used in radiocarbon dating.




On another note- I listened to a couple podcasts that JR recommended. Learning several things so far about the actual meaning of the term 'evolution'. As I have mentioned before I don't feel like I have any pre-conceived ideas about evolution as I am just recently learning about it....
I also like that the topics of #126 and 133 are mingled in between more serious topics. Lol


Here is how you do it. Google search.

Let us first see is ICR is a scinetific research institution or not. It is NOT. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research#School_and_accreditation)

The ICR's relocation to Texas required Texas state approval or accreditation by a regional accrediting agency, in this case Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).[34] In 2007, the ICR applied for a temporary state certification there which would have allowed the institute to operate while it pursues accreditation through SACS.[35] In December 2007, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) received an advisory committee recommendation to allow the ICR to start offering online master's degrees in science education.
The Board originally planned to decide on the issue at their January 2008 meeting.[34] At the time it applied, ICR graduate school had approximately 30 to 50 students, most teachers from private Christian schools or home-schoolers, and four full-time faculty.[1][2][36]
After seeking the advice from an independent panel, the Chairman of the Texas Board requested information about the research conducted by the faculty, how an on-line program would expose students to the experimental side of science, and asked why "[t]heir curriculum doesn't line up very well with the curriculum available in conventional master of science programs."[37] Subsequently, the ICR asked the THECB to delay its decision until their next meeting, on April 24, 2008 to give them time to respond.[37] Inside Higher Ed reported "lobbying — by scientists against the institute, and by others in its favor — is going strong."[38]
The Dallas Morning News obtained some of the messages sent to the board and published a number of examples and summaries that illustrated how intense the debate had become.[39] Following the response from the ICR to the Board, Steven Schafersman, of the Texas Citizens for Science, reported that the ICR sent out "prayer requests" and is currently arguing a creationist derived distinction of science in their application for approval.[40]
On April 23, 2008, education board's Academic Excellence and Research Committee unanimously voted against allowing the ICR to issue science degrees citing "the institute’s program is infused with creationism and runs counter to conventions of science that hold that claims of supernatural intervention are not testable and therefore lie outside the realm of science."[41] On the following day the full Board unanimously voted against allowing the ICR to issue science degrees. The decision was "based the recommendation on two considerations:
ICR failed to demonstrate that the proposed degree program meets acceptable standards of science and science education.
The proposed degree is inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules which require the accurate labeling or designation of programs … Since the proposed degree program inadequately covers key areas of science, it cannot be properly designated either as 'science' or 'science education.'"[42]
The ICR said it would appeal the decision saying the Education Board was guilty of "viewpoint discrimination."[43] Instead, in April 2009, the ICR sued the THECB in federal court for imposing "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against ICRGS's academic freedom and religious liberties" and asked for the ability to award science degrees.[44][45] In June 2010, a judge ruled in favor of the Texas Higher Education saying the ICR "is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information."[46] The judge concluded, "The Court simply comes to the conclusion, which is inescapable, that the [THECB] decision was rationally related to a legitimate state interest."[47][48] In the September 2010 ICR newsletter, Henry Morris III, the ICR's chief executive officer, wrote "ICR's legal battle is over" after the Judge ruled in favor of the Texas Board.[49][50]
In 2010, the ICR board of directors voted to close the ICR Graduate School and open a School of Biblical Apologetics, offering a Master of Christian Education degree with Creation Research being one of four minors.[49][51] The ICR noted that "Due to the nature of ICR's School of Biblical Apologetics — a predominantly religious education school — it is exempt from licensing by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.[49]


Now that ICR has lost its battle to get anybody to recognize its work as a science, it has explicitly accepted that it is a religious apologetics institution. So all its publications should be viewed as such. The fact is calling something "science" or "research" is a good branding strategy and everyone- from religious groups (Christian Science, ICR, Scientology etc.) to cheap ads with smiling people in fake lab coats to push products- try to use the glamour for their own advantage. Flames are bound to attract moths.
sayak
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Affiliation: Humanist

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby spongebob » Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:44 pm

Stacie Cook wrote:Here is an article written by someone I know nothing about, other than his stated title and schooling mentioned at the bottom of the article. How am I to know if he is a quack or not? University of Toronto- is that a reputable school? I don't know...

Is the ICR research lab not considered a place of research?

http://www.icr.org/article/myths-regard ... on-dating/
A quote from the article:
"Creationists are not so much interested in debunking radiocarbon as we are in developing a proper understanding of it to answer many of our own questions regarding the past. "

I see how this could be interpreted as 'we are developing things to fit our mold'.

Are there no evolutionists that do the same?


Any person can succumb to the dangers of personal bias and no one is really immune to it or to delusion. There have been many scientists over the centuries who promoted their work for biased reasons and who even falsified results. Just because one is a scientist does not insure integrity. However, the very field of "Science" has a built in mechanism to protect the overall body of work from this. No one's work is above reproach and no one can be considered as unchallengable in science. Your ideas must be supported by evidence and data and if your results are real, others will be able to reproduce it. This is an important mechanism that helps keep integrity in science. Organizations like the ICR and ID have no such mechanism and in fact they reject such things because whenever they publish papers (never in scientific journals) and someone reads their "work" and questions why it conflicts with known observations, their immediate reaction is to dismiss any and all criticisms as biased. That is a real problem in any field. You have to explain this in terms of science; you have to meet evidence with evidence. Bad scientists exist and they pop up now and then, but they are almost universally revealed by other scientists. So the system, while messy, works. Scientists generally like to be right and they generally take great pleasure in proving other scientists wrong, so any claim a scientist makes is bound to attract the attention of other scientists in the same field who want nothing more than to knock them down. But you can't do it without evidence.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Simplyme » Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:20 pm

Stacie Cook wrote:Whether the creation scientists are actually scientists in the same definition used to define evolution scientists, I don't know. I can't say for sure, so as you all are saying, perhaps they are quacks.


Even among scientists that discuss evolution, surely there are some that are quacks in some fashion (not necessarily in the realm of evolution). How do you discern quacks among the rest? Every group of people everywhere whether scientists, lawyers, teachers, doctors,etc has an array of people ranging from insane to sane. How do you discern which scientists to believe? Not all of them can be sane, objective people. I hope this is not coming across as accusatory. It is a genuine question....



I really do not think you are getting it.

I can try and put it simple. A Scientist should be able to back up there claim with data that can be experimented and observed, and others should be able to repeat there experimented and get the same results.



Shit: I should of read page 3. Someone(SpongeBob) always beats me to it.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Rian » Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:22 pm

Stacie - my opinion, FWIW, is that I think people should continue to read from a variety of sources, including ICR. You are already starting to ask good questions, IMO. I've had many interesting hours reading back and forth from both sides in the issue, and analyzing what they say, and learning a lot.

(and just for the record, I think evolution could be true, and that it should definitely be taught in schools because it's the leading scientific theory. I also see some significant problems in it, and I think that the most likely thing that happened was a creation event followed by lots of microevolution. I think that idea should get at least a one-minute mention in schools, mainly because students could discuss and learn about what is scientifically testable and what is not, and that's a valuable thing to know. But I'm fine with evolution being true, too, because obviously it doesn't rule out the existence of God.)
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6262
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Jesus Raves » Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:53 pm

Why should that belief get even a minute of airtime in a science classroom? Is there any evidence, even weak evidence, to back up such an idea? Even if there were a few bits of evidence that could be bent to lend an ounce of credence to this pseudoscience, why would the theory deserve any discussion in a public school? Anyway, I have no problem with Creationism being taught in the same light as geocentricism. That would be appropriate.
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Rian » Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:13 pm

Mainly because I think it's important for students to learn how to THINK. I don't know how many high-school kids you're around, but my youngest just graduated, and the stories she brought home to me about the mindless repetition of ideas with no thinking behind it!!! :shock: And it's so frustrating to hear people try to use "science" to support their arguments in realms that have nothing to do with science! They just need to learn to THINK.

I think an interesting, profitable and appropriate way to approach it (in an American classroom) would be something like this:

How did what you see all around you get here? That's what we will attempt to answer in this class. There are lots of possibilities, and no one will ever know for sure because we just can't look back into history and see, but what we CAN do is look at the evidence left by various processes and come up with testable hypotheses and find out a great deal. Now you'll hear some different thoughts on where we came from. In America, many people believe that some kind of God is behind creation, and many people believe that there is just matter and natural processes behind things. Because this is a SCIENCE class, though, we can only answer questions that fit into the scientific paradigm. Can science tell us whether or not, for example, the God described in the Bible created the universe? No, because that doesn't fit into the scientific paradigm. Now, can science comment on the question of whether or not the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, as a group called Young Earth Creationists say? It most definitely can - and has - and in our section on geology, we will cover that.

Since science cannot comment on most aspects of any kind of god model, though, in this class, we will confine ourselves to discussing the leading theory of how what you see around you got here - the Theory of Evolution.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6262
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Simplyme » Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:30 pm

So in other words...confuse kids with non provable thngs to see how they think? Maybe they should also teach the origins of theta and the creation of the physical universe, or Erebus, the unknowable place where death dwells, and Night. "All else was empty, silent, endless, darkness. Then somehow Love was born bringing a start of order. From Love came Light and Day. Once there was Light and Day, Gaea, the earth appeared"
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Rian » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:00 pm

I think it would be a great idea to mention a good cross-section of these types of things and have the kids learn to analyze what is testable and what isn't. You know, teach them how to think and analyze, just like a scientist does. I hate when classes are merely "learn these facts". People should be taught how to THINK about things on their own, IMO. It's a useful life-skill.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6262
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby sayak » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:06 pm

Rian wrote:Mainly because I think it's important for students to learn how to THINK. I don't know how many high-school kids you're around, but my youngest just graduated, and the stories she brought home to me about the mindless repetition of ideas with no thinking behind it!!! :shock: And it's so frustrating to hear people try to use "science" to support their arguments in realms that have nothing to do with science! They just need to learn to THINK.

I think an interesting, profitable and appropriate way to approach it (in an American classroom) would be something like this:

How did what you see all around you get here? That's what we will attempt to answer in this class. There are lots of possibilities, and no one will ever know for sure because we just can't look back into history and see, but what we CAN do is look at the evidence left by various processes and come up with testable hypotheses and find out a great deal. Now you'll hear some different thoughts on where we came from. In America, many people believe that some kind of God is behind creation, and many people believe that there is just matter and natural processes behind things. Because this is a SCIENCE class, though, we can only answer questions that fit into the scientific paradigm. Can science tell us whether or not, for example, the God described in the Bible created the universe? No, because that doesn't fit into the scientific paradigm. Now, can science comment on the question of whether or not the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, as a group called Young Earth Creationists say? It most definitely can - and has - and in our section on geology, we will cover that.

Since science cannot comment on most aspects of any kind of god model, though, in this class, we will confine ourselves to discussing the leading theory of how what you see around you got here - the Theory of Evolution.


I am sorry Rian, but I do not think mention of God should be there in a science class at all. No scientific theory or paper or hypothesis mentions God ever in anything, so such ideas should not be in science class. The questions of God have no place in science classroom. In history class,in discussions on ethics or philosophy, or comparative religion of course. But not in science class. You would not discuss them in math or language class either. Nobody says in math class that God created mathematics, or in language class that God is necessary for meaning etc. Similarly for science classes.
sayak
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Affiliation: Humanist

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Simplyme » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:18 pm

Rian wrote:I think it would be a great idea to mention a good cross-section of these types of things and have the kids learn to analyze what is testable and what isn't. You know, teach them how to think and analyze, just like a scientist does. I hate when classes are merely "learn these facts". People should be taught how to THINK about things on their own, IMO. It's a useful life-skill.


I think churches should do this to. Teach other religious beliefs. Teach people how to think and analyze. I hate it when churches are merely "just read the bible and do not ask questions". People should be taught how to think about things on there own. IMO. Its a useful life-skill.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:46 pm

Simplyme wrote:I think churches should do this to. Teach other religious beliefs. Teach people how to think and analyze. I hate it when churches are merely "just read the bible and do not ask questions". People should be taught how to think about things on there own. IMO. Its a useful life-skill.


I don't doubt that many churches are 'do not ask questions' churches, but I have never attended one and would be quite leery to do so. I have attended a couple different church that did offer classes on other religions...
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:05 pm

spongebob wrote:That's a valid question and there's no real simple answer because no scientific field is completely known and explained. An example would be in the realm of physics you have scientists who adhere to string theory and others who embrace loop quantum gravity. There is no consensus on which of these, if either, is correct and there is almost no observational data to support one over the other. So basically, both of these ideas are possible and it's valid to support either or neither. However, there are still those who dispute the observed data that supports big bang theory despite the fact that the theory is well supported by evidence, so if someone wants to promote a competing theory, they have to provide some evidence that justifies this position, otherwise you're just a quack. People who continue to support and promote ideas that contradict observed evidence are practicing pseudoscience and fit the definition of a quack. Does that help explain this?

And btw, this doesn't mean one is insane. Perfectly sane people can become deluded by ideas they just can't let go of for whatever reasons.


Yes, it does help. Thank you.
I listened to the first two podcasts on evolution by Dr. Zachary Moore. I thought he said something about the Big Bang Theory not being part of evolution, but I could be wrong. I was listening while grocery shopping, so I will have to go back and listen again.
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:07 pm

Rian wrote:I think it would be a great idea to mention a good cross-section of these types of things and have the kids learn to analyze what is testable and what isn't. You know, teach them how to think and analyze, just like a scientist does. I hate when classes are merely "learn these facts". People should be taught how to THINK about things on their own, IMO. It's a useful life-skill.


They could just watch Sid the creepy Science Kid on PBS. They use the scientific method to figure out stuff.... :D
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Simplyme » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:08 pm

Stacie Cook wrote:
Simplyme wrote:I think churches should do this to. Teach other religious beliefs. Teach people how to think and analyze. I hate it when churches are merely "just read the bible and do not ask questions". People should be taught how to think about things on there own. IMO. Its a useful life-skill.


I don't doubt that many churches are 'do not ask questions' churches, but I have never attended one and would be quite leery to do so. I have attended a couple different church that did offer classes on other religions...


Classes on alternate truth or how other religion are not the real religion? Never in my long life have i been to a church that teaches other religious views as alternative.
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6018
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:15 pm

Lots to think about. Thank you all so far for the information provided. I do appreciate it.
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

PreviousNext

Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest