|
Author
|
Topic: ICR Sues Texas
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 1 of 549 (506104)
04-22-2009 4:10 PM
|
|
|
OK, the story so far. The institute for Creation Research wants to offer a Master's Degree in what they call "science education" and I would call "teaching people to tell lies to children". They are of course free to teach what they like, but the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has refused to certify them on the not unreasonable grounds that their course is ... well ... crap. To quote Texas Citizens for Science:
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. The ICR, eschewing the normal bureaucratic channels for seeking redress (or, of course, the option of teaching something that isn't complete shit) have gone running to the courtroom for what they would describe as "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against ICRGS's academic freedom and religious liberties" and I would describe as "what those jerks had coming to them". The idea that it might be "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's academic freedom and religious liberties" to force them to say that something they think is crap isn't crap does not appear to have occurred to the self-serving hypocrites at ICRGS. 'Cos they're morons. Their 67-page statement of their case can be found here. It seems to consist of the usual creationist whining, but there may be some sort of legal argument concealed in there somewhere. Or not. It does, however, reveal them to be incompetent to think about science, much less teach it. The Dallas Observer, giving the lie to unkind stereotypes about Texans, thinks that the whole thing is hilarious, and has described their voluminous complaint as "reading kind of like stereo instructions". They also have a nice picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur.
The ICR's original Petition For Contested Case Status runs to 755 pages, and has appendices from A to Z. One presumes that they only stopped 'cos they ran out of letters. They request that the court take "judicial notice" of it.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 8 of 549 (506135)
04-22-2009 9:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by Coyote
04-22-2009 8:02 PM
|
|
Creationism is anti-science. And they want a MS in creationism? No, that's not the problem. I don't have the links to hand right now, but I've seen the Texas Board say that they'd have no problem in accrediting them to teach Creationism or Christian Apologetics, since that is what they are in fact doing. The problem is that they want this to be an MS in "Science Education", which it manifestly isn't. So they can't pass this off as being equivalent to an actual MS in science education. That would be wrong.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by Coyote, posted 04-22-2009 8:02 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 10 of 549 (506137)
04-22-2009 9:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by subbie
04-22-2009 9:16 PM
|
|
Re: A summary
Thanks. Having read various legal briefs and decisions I did have the impression that their complaint was batshit crazy from a legal point of view. But I am glad to have it confirmed by one who knows.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by subbie, posted 04-22-2009 9:16 PM | | subbie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by subbie, posted 04-22-2009 10:08 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 31 of 549 (566282)
06-24-2010 12:31 AM
|
|
|
Forum member ramoss has provided an update here.
ramoss writes: http://blogs.houstonpress.com/...6/creationism_higher_ed.php The Institution for Creation Research was a California-based school that moved to the Dallas area three years ago. They applied to Texas' Higher Education Coordinating Board for certification to give master's degrees in science; the HECB reviewed their curriculum and turned them down. They sued. A federal judge in Austin has ruled against the group and in favor of the HECB, in a ruling that stings pretty hard. "It appears that although the court has twice required [ICR] to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information," Judge Sam Sparks wrote. And then he got to the meat of the case. The Court notes for the record it enters no opinion here on whether it agrees with the Board's decision. It does not " judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic" of the Board's decision, because it has no jurisdiction to do so. The Court simply comes to the conclusion, which is inescapable, that the decision was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. He noted that the ICR is free to teach the course any way they want even with his ruling; they just can't offer a certified master's degree in science to graduates. And that's probably a good thing. In his summary judgment ruling Sparks said Joseph Stafford, one of the people reviewing the issue for the state: quoted the following excerpts from ICRGS's program catalog: 1. "It is the position of the institute that...all genuine facts of science support the Bible." 2. "The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator." 3. "All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis...[.] The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any form are false. (emphasis added by Stafford). Dr. Stafford concluded these statements (and others) constituted a rejection of the fundamental principles which guide what scientists do, because scientists must "remain open to all facts and all observations of natural phenomena in order to refine and improve their comprehensive explanations of how natural processes appear to work." Thanks to ramoss.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
thenon the other hand, since the secular world does not own the field of science they have no authority to say what is or isn't scientific. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board does however have the authority, and the duty, to decide what does or doesn't count as a Master's Degree in science.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
link please. Here you go. There's this great website called Google, I don't know if youve heard of it.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. Signed by 12,665 Christian clergy as of this Tuesday.
it would surprise many secularists to know that their beloved science has its foundation in religion and bible believing people: A lot of scientists were and are Christians, yes, and no "secularist" would be remotely surprised by such a statement. To say "science has its foundation in religion", on the other hand, is nonsense. It is interesting to see how fundamentalists simultaneously (falsely) ascribe science to their religion and (foolishly) deny the results of science. One thinks that they should make a consistent decision as to what to do with their imaginary cake. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
yet that does not mean that evolution is correct and creatism is wrong. No, what it means is that I supplied you with the link you asked for. A simple "thank you" would have sufficed.
all that shows is that 12,665 clergy do not believe the God they claim to serve and it is a sad day for the world that it is so. And yet on another thread you were defending a non-literal interpretation of the Book of Joshua. Would you like me to link you to some of the geocentrists who will make exactly the same complaint about you as you make about these 12,665 clergy?
With God the majority does not rule nor determine what is right, wrong, truth or error. God has set that standard and left it up to people to choose which they will accept and believe. And I see that you went with "error". Face it, if there is a God, then your favorite interpretation of your favorite translation of your favorite recension of your favorite canon of your favorite book is the work of men (your good self included) but the Universe is definitely the work of God. So perhaps you should pay more attention to it.
being founded by does not mean they have to accept all results nor that those results are consistant with the founding fathers beliefs, especially when the field has been altered by contrary beliefs. Obviously it's possible for you to be wrong about both issues simultaneously, since in fact you are; I just don't think it's a very dignified position.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
here is an update ... Not really. The material you link to is prior to the judgment reported in post #31.
icrs website, i couldn't find anything about their lawsuit yet That should be "any more", not "yet". They did have information on it on their website, but apparently they took it down --- the writer in the link suggests that they did so out of embarrassment, but this is not an emotion that one readily associates with YECs.
one of the things that bothers me is that the christian university/college/seminary does not need to be recognized by the secular world nor does it need to put itself under secular rules. by looking for accreditation or recognition by the secualr world then their curriculums are overseen by those who do not believe and it causes problems, as we can see by the lawsuits. Who knows why creationists do what they do? But one might speculate that since they never get even the tiniest sign of approval from their god, they are obliged to seek it from men. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
in all the years i have been discussing science with atheists and evolutionists, there is one common thread or theme. they think all science is good and they never look onthe evil science has wrought. to start: dr. mengeles and other nazi scientists; pestilance, poisons; tools of war- tanks, napalm, mustard gas...; medicines which bring severe side effects, worse than the disease itself; and so much more. you cannot overlook the evil because the field is telling you what you want to hear about origins and crops and health. to do so is hypocritical and destroys your credibility/ And if this nonsense applied to real people rather than to imaginary people who live in your head, you'd have a point. Really, in your fantasy world I don't disapprove of Dr Mengele? That's even funnier than creationism.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
and here is a good reason why there cannever be a good discussionbetween christians and secularists, thelatter refuses to acknowledge the evil side f science and the evil people who help populate it. But this is, of course, not true. I do acknowledge it --- I plainly acknowledge it. It is foolish and absurd for you to claim differently, and yet, being a creationist, and therefore no stranger to the foolish and absurd, this is in fact what you do. The reason, then, that there can be no "good discussion" between us is that when I clearly say one thing, you can always run away to the fantasy world in your head where I say the exact opposite. How am I meant to talk to someone who won't even admit that my opinions are my opinions? --- P.S: Do not put quotations from, and answers to, other people in messages which appear as replies to my posts. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
anyways, with that said, i will be posting here a lot less I find myself strangely indifferent to the possibility of the door hitting your ass on the way out.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
it is not right nor fair to force one segment of the public to bear high expenses while the atheist and evolutionist enjoy a free education. Everyone gets a free education --- or at least has it offered to them. If some people don't like being educated, they also have the option of being pig-ignorant at no direct financial cost to themselves. It didn't cost you one thin dime to be a creationist, did it? It's not like it's the result of expert tuition. Not knowing things comes extremely cheap.
the public interest is not limited to the secular population. Indeed it is not --- the clergy also benefit from science. But perhaps you are misusing the word "secular". In which case I would add that you and your creationist pals benefit from science too, no matter how much you whine about it; and it is therefore in your interest that it be taught. The dissemination of ignorance, on the other hand, is not in the public interest. It would, on the whole, be a bad thing if students' information about (for example) electricity was limited to creationist teaching materials such as this:
And when I say that it would be a bad thing, I mean that it would lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: In light of the mention of U.K. Faith Schools
yet who is richard dawkins? just anothe secular human with another subjective opinion which is not greater than anyone else's opinion. some secularist who disagrees with him and gets enough people would beat down dawkins and establish a new world order, then another person who diosagreed with that victor woudl do the same and on it would go. Sounds like the history of Christendom. Apart from being made up, of course.
that is why there is a BIble with a hiogher unsubjective standard, so such destructive tendancies would be stopped. and people could appeal to it knowing it was originated by a perfect supreme being and know they would get justice, fairness, mercy and so on. That's why back when people took it seriously they spent so much time burning one another alive. They all had an objective standard telling them who to burn. Of course, they all had a different objective standard ... funny how that works, isn't it?
all dawkins is doing is supporting anarchy. But without ever saying or doing anything to bring it about. I guess it's a subtle form of nonexistent anarchy, which can only be seen with the eyes of faith ... like God. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 138 of 549 (577677)
08-30-2010 1:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by Buzsaw
08-29-2010 9:05 PM
|
|
Re: There is no Theory of Creation
That's because it's so logical and matter of fact according to real life. Miracles are "matter of fact according to real life"? We have obviously lived very different lives. I find reproduction with variation a lot more matter of fact, 'cos of being able to observe it.
What is designed and created does not require elitist complicated mathmatical and theoretical concocted assumptions to explain. From which we deduce that gravity was not designed and created, since it does.
Most of what we observe in (abe: here and now) real life tends towards chaos, decay, corrosion, extermination, non-complexity and disorder when void of intelligent design and management. We have obviously been observing very different things. I've been observing the real world.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by Buzsaw, posted 08-29-2010 9:05 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 08-30-2010 9:06 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Your respect here is refreshing. But your last comment is laughable. You cannot work twords a goal, when the rules are not the same for evidence. The rules are the same --- creationism fails by exactly the same rules by which evolution succeeds. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
™ Version 4.2
