ex-robot

ICR thinking their tenets of BC has scientific support is a far cry from thinking that "God created Adam from the dust of the ground is scientific. If you look at their tenets of biblical creationism and think a bit, you will find that even ICR would not consider them scientific. ICR believes things have to be observed to be scientific. (which isn't true but oh well) Have you never heard of Gish say or write, "Biblical creation isn't scientific but neither is evolution. Nobody observed the origin of life, fish evolving to amphibians, and so on. We have circumstantial evidence that is scientific" and so on, and so on. If you said "ICR believes its TBC are historical, I would agree.


TBC

"The Biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous"
I could if we were discussing all these matters. These are all side issues in my opinion to the original topic of "Does ICR consider its TBC scientific".

I don't believe even ICR considers supernatural events like god creating man out of dust, a talking snake, and so on to be "scientiic" in "their" own mind. Most of it they would consider supernatural events with divinely inspired support (the bible) while a few points they may consider having scientific support (the flood) but not "God shut the door, God spoke to Moses"

ICR hasn't been trying to get bible topics into public school for eons. They admit it isn't constiutional. Let me know if you want specific articles indicating such.

xr
P.S. Remember (if you looked at my intro) that I was raised a YEC, so I have a better perspective on what "they" actually believe, think, or whatever.

hezekiah jones

Yes, precisely. Thank you. With all due respect I thought I had demonstrated these points several times. Not only in my own opinion but, more importantly, in the words of Henry M. Morris, the esteemed grandpappy of "modern" creationism himself.

ex-robot apparently will not be satisfied until the statement The ICR does not consider its Tenets of Biblical Creationism to be scientific, nor are they supported by science, in any way, shape, or form can be excavated somewhere on the ICR's website - which ain't gonna happen, because Morris' own declarations demonstrate quite the contrary.

hezekiah jones

Then I suggest your next project include a historical review of the thoroughly disingenuous tactics "creation science" advocates have adopted with respect to their desire to infiltrate the public school biology curricula with their panoply of fabulous myths.

theyeti

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that the ICR doesn't consider TBC scientific only because they're opperating under a different defintion of science than the rest of us. Is that the idea?

Yes, I've heard him say that sort of stuff, but I never considered it more than a debating tactic. Anyone who knows beans about science knows that you don't have to observe something to have evidence that it occured -- he's just playing to the ignorance of the audience. Gish is a slippery bastard, and he has been known to lie on stage. And then after being called out on it he repeats the very same lie the very next week. But you may have a point here if you're claiming that he opperates under a different defini-+00tion of science than the rest of us.

Yes, but the whole point of YEC is to get the bible into schools in a constitutional manner. They know good and well that teaching the bible is against the law (though they have no respect for that law -- look how many fundie controled schools thumb there noses at it). So they try to claim the the Bible stories are "science" and then insert them that way, thereby getting rid of things like evolution and standard geology that show that the Bible stories are not literally true.

Yes I know, and I value the unique perspective. I think you make a positive contribution to this board. But I think that you're arguing over nothing here, and if Hez is so motivated he can bring a statue (or a robot) to its knees. I don't want you to get flamed just for being stubborn.

theyeti

ex-robot

sg, you have read too many things into my posts. it is not my intent to defend ICR in regards to your statements above.

xr

ex-robot

Yes, I have been giving ICR's point of view the whole time. This isn't about what hezakiah thinks.
Yes, I am essentially saying in Gish's and ICR's minds, it is not science under "their" warped view of science (observable). Their belief that there is circumstantial "scientific" evidence to support biblical claims does not mean they consider biblical creationism "scientific" in their definition. They obviously believe evolutionists only have circumstantial evidence as well, but they don't call it scientific or science.
From W. Bird, ICR's attorney
"We are not trying to bring the Bible or Genesis into public schools.

H Morris and J Morris have also said essentially the same thing. They are also not trying to get rid of evolution from public schools.
Thanks.
All I did was simply point out a false assumption based on my experience and perspective. I have even tried to not be dogmatic and claim it as fact. I don't get that impression from hez.

xr

theyeti

Okay xr, I think the source of misunderstanding is revealed, and there's no need for any more snippity. So I think we can mostly drop this. Just one more thing:

You don't actually believe them when they say this, do you? This is just a smoke-screen to cover what they're really doing, as their actions tell otherwise. After it came about the they failed with the "equal time" argument, they went to the other end and tried to have evolution declared a "religion" and thus removed from schools. It is their overarching goal to replace evolution with creationism, as they have made quite clear, and this is just a stepping-stone approach. Look at that nonsense bill being proposed in Washington. Do you think the ICR would be against that?

theyeti

ex-robot

I'll get back to you on the Washington deal after I read about it. I agree about the past and being turned down in court, etc. Philosphically, I believe they still would like equal time. Practically, I don't think this has been the case for sometime in regards to major creationists/organizations like ICR, AIG, etc. They have a "little" more sense than Hovindites to know now that requiring teachers who may be atheiests to teach creation along side evolution would be a mistake. Removing "evolution" would also be removing a ton of stuff that they agree about and observe themselves.

Oh my! I just read the washington proposal. No! ICR would not approve of that.

Oolon Colluphid

Still waiting for donotworry to back up his assertions about the appendix not being vestigial, Archaeopteryx, and whatever it is about “winged vs. wingless beetles”...

Oolon

hezekiah jones

I wonder. One of Hochstatter's allies in the Washington state senate is Val Stevens. In fact, Stevens co-sponsored Hochstatter's previous assault on science education, SB6058, which is apparently still kicking around the education committee.

Stevens herself is heavy into Concerned Women for America, which was founded by Beverly LaHaye, wife of Tim. Back in the 70s, Tim helped found ... wait for it ... the Institute for Creation Research.