Creationists fail in bid to offer ‘science’ degrees

_{Mario Lopez

April 30, 2008

Creationism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From Nature:

A religious group has had its application to offer Master of Science degrees rejected by Texas authorities. The Institute for Creation Research— which backs a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the creation of Earth in six days — was seeking a certificate to grant online degrees in science education in Texas (see Nature 451, 1030; 2008). But the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously last week not to grant the institute’s request, following the recommendation of Raymund Paredes, the state’s commissioner of higher education. “Religious belief is not science,” Paredes said in his recommendation. “Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.” The institute has 45 days to appeal or 180 days to reapply.

Religious belief is not science? Does Paredes feel that “religious” people can’t teach adequate science? He’s right, “religious belief is not science,” but should creationists be barred from teaching/offering degrees because of their beliefs? EXPELLED!

Comments

To be honest, though I have no grudge against ICR, sometimes they were a little rude in answering my questions by e-mail. But anyways, two things: 1. IMO, the best explanation for the days of Genesis is the literary framework hypothesis. (I don’t think nor the Bible nor the LFH gives the age of the earth). While Refuting Compromise is a set of hardcore arguments against Hugh Ross position, it is far from refuting the LFH. Actually most people criticizing it do it in terms of associating it with Big Bang cosmology. 2. Dr. Sarfati, I really think you should write a book on the origins of life, now that would be awesome! Any projects coming? I really liked your books.MaxAug_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Hey Scordova, I know this isn't the most scientific argument, but seeing as you at least trust in creation and scripture for the most part I thought I would just throw this in there. You say that the 30,000 year old star, or any star for that matter poses a serious problem to young earth creation. I say it doesn't and here's why: In scripture, God said let there be light. Why would he wait around for millions or billions of years after this statement for the light in the visible universe to reach its destination. It seems more reasonable to me that when God made this statement, all light within the visible universe would have reached its destination instantaneously. Of course this is a supernatural explanation of how it could have happened, but seeing as the very science we fight for assumes a higher intelligence or power, or for this case, an almighty God, would it be unreasonable to consider such a case? I mean obviously if this were the case, where all light instantaneously reaches its destination during creation, distance between stars and consideration to the speed of light would no longer be a defeating factor to young earth creationism. Please correct me if there already have been discoveries that would make this approach implausible.Shady_Milkman_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

"I will be much less worried if we have: 1. pluasible reformulation of Maxwell’s equations and accompanying changes in Relativity 2. plausible mechanism for accelerated decay" Sal, We don't fully understand electricity (charge), magnetism, mass, energy, gravity, time or space, yet you have to have a theoretical mechanism for accelerated decay that seems plausible to you before you can trust the Bible? Does that seem logical to you?YEC_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Jonathan, Jobe Martin gave me your book. I will endeavor to give it a fair reading. As far as the science of old earth, I studied some physics under James Trefil and his books were among the first to make me aware of the problems in the Big Bang (even though he himself believes it). I'm aware the Big Bang has problems, enough for me to disbelieve today. But even David Berlinski disbelieves the Big Bang. His observations are posted at the Discovery Institute here: Was there a Big Bang?. I think there is strong evidence of accelerated radioactive decay. I believe the geological column is suspect based on first principles of physics alone, etc. etc. I also believe John Sanford made a devastating case against long ages for biology in his book "Genetic Entropy". I myself have done research on amino acid racemization rates which suggest systematic errors in C-14 dating. This work was initially done by RH Brown and Michael Brown at Loma Linda, and I did some of my own follow up. I have been encouraged by some predictions of the population of spectroscopic binaries in globular clusters. But this research is awfully pre-mature right now and it's not without some serious problems.... That said, there are still disturbing loose ends which I have discomfort sweeping under the rug, not the least of which were the equations which a creationist formulated for electrodynamics (Maxwell was by no means a Darwinist). When I was confronted with a "30,000 year-old" Mira Variable star last year, I thought the Old-Earther's had some very good counter arguments to YEC. Not necessarily fatal, but awfully tough. I appreciated your research on YEC. One may argue the scriptural case for YEC is strong, but if so, any major gap in YEC science is a reason to wonder if the scriptures may not be from God afterall. I hate say it, but the thought has crossed my mind each time a piece of evidence potentially falsifying YEC came to my attention. I will be much less worried if we have:
1. pluasible reformulation of Maxwell's equations and accompanying changes in Relativity 2. plausible mechanism for accelerated decay
The above to problems will also lead to a pluasible cosmology. I suppose these things wouldn't bother me if I didn't care about the truthfulness of Genesis, but I do care. I hope you are right about the age of the Earth, but I suppose it's in my nature to be skeptical. ID has given me some assurance that the idea of special creation could be right (since ID effectively destroys Darwinism). However, a successful reformulation of Maxwell's electrodynamics to account for distant starlight and possibly accelerated radioactive decay would be most convincing. This would be a slam dunk for ID, a slam dunk for special creation. But I'm not sure the science for this is anywhere near completion.... Best wishes and God bless you. Maybe we'll meet at one of the ICC's some day. Thank you for considering my comments. Salvadorscordova_{May 1, 2008
May
05
May
1
01
2008
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

QuadFather, thanx for your generous comments about my book. :) Scordova, Refuting Compromise explains why the "YEC" position is the most consistent, and why old-earth positions are exegetically unsound, are contrary to what the Church Fathers and Reformers taught, and not supported by science. It includes chapters on the history of mankind, the origin of death and suffering, the created kinds, the big bang, scientific support for a young earth, and refutation of old-earth "science".Jonathan Sarfati_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

john1989, Why would they reject the FSM? It's such a fantastic parody of chemical evolution, and schools _already_ teach that. Jonathan Sarfati, Wait ... THE Jonathan Sarfati? You're really the guy? Can I just tell you that your book Refuting Compromise is one of the best books I've ever read. It is PACKED with information. That book is seriously THE reason that I got into the subject of life's origins. Thanks so much! And unfortunately, the term "creation" and its many variations bears a heavy burden of negative connotations, like "religion," "supersition," "fairy tales," etc. Is it fair to pass judgment based on connotations rather than content? No. But unfortunately, that's the way the world is right now. Perhaps we need to take it one baby step at a time: Introduce the idea that intelligent activity produced life. Then eventually, perhaps people will be more prepared to hear other valid arguments about the science of earth's history.QuadFather_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Jonathan, First of all, let me apologize for delays in the posting of your responses. Akismet spam protection has just be reactivated and even my comments are being delayed.... I personally hope the YEC enterprise succeeds. But there are some days the problems for the hypothesis seem insurmountable. I have tried to persist. I hope God will help with evidential discoveries, especially in cosmology and plausible mechanisms for accelerated decay... I think churches can and ought to require that people who voluntarily join a church subscribe to certain professions of faith... I think religious institution are free to do the same and be accredited to teach science. I hope the ICR can receive accreditation..... But as a matter of business, I think some consideration has to be made as to whether serious scientific research institutions will be run like churches where creeds are demanded. The Baraminology Study group appointed an old-Earth evolutionary biologist in 2004 by the name of Richard Sternberg to be editor of their proceedings. This bore much fruit (although regretably for Richard Sternberg it resulted in his expulsion from the Smithsonian). The ICR is free to do business as they choose. I'm merely observing a pattern that I personally have reservations about. The most talented YECs that I know came from an OEC background. By and large, I found many OECs hoping the YEC hypothesis succeeds. Both parties cannot be right. The OECs have some scientific concerns which I think are legitimate, not the least of which are the creationist Maxwell's equations in their present form. The Baraminology Study Group (BSG) has been a little more open to non-creationists participating in the scientific research enterprise. If the ICR will not open it's doors, I expect other YEC organizations to open their doors. In any case, I agree with you that ICR should not be denied accreditation.scordova_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT}

ICR is not forcing anyone to take courses there. Similarly, theological colleges are entitled to have Calvinist, Premillennial, or Wesleyan statements of faith. If ICR didn't have such a statement, then it would be pointless.Jonathan Sarfati_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Come off it. That is hardly the excuse to deny accreditation.
Perhaps you're right. I probably have a bit of an axe to grind with that organization, so I'm not exactly objective.... To ICR's credit, their literature persuaded me to reject Darwinism while I was in high school. I didn't like some of the rest however....the distaste has remained to this day, though I have great reverence for Duane Gish... But let me state that while I think the ICR ought to be accredited (since we accredit the quackery of Darwinism we surely should allow anti-Darwinism a fair chance) -- some of the reasons I'm not exactly enamored with the ICR. From their website:
The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School has a unique statement of faith for its faculty and students ... All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3
That would mean the following people in the movie "Expelled" might not be granted degrees from ICR if they don't agree to YECism: Guillermo Gonzalez Richard Sternberg Caroline Crocker Stephen Meyer William Dembski Gerald Schroeder David Berlinski Johnathan Wells I'm sympathetic to YEC. I think the natural reading of the Bible is sympathetic to YEC. But I can't say my understanding of anything is so infallible that I'm incapable of mis-reading or misunderstanding. I would hope a school, at least with respect to its students, will be merciful to the Doubting Thomases like myself. Jude 1:22 "Be merciful to those who doubt". My feelings as far as a solution? Let a YEC come forward with a convincing re-formulation of the creationist Maxwell's Electrodynamics and the associated aspects of relativity tied to Maxwell's equations, and maybe my doubts won't be so strong anymore. I've been working on the project myself. Not much luck, but I'm hopeful. Sorry if I'm a bit biased, but maybe more facts and less theology would be more solidifying to my ability to believe in the ICR mission. That's just me I suppose... Any disgruntled UD readers can express their disagreement with me in person at the ICC2008 and Baraminology 2008 conference this August. :-) God willing, I'll be there....scordova_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

Come off it. That is hardly the excuse to deny accreditation. Universities that insist on the party line of Darwinian materialism and political correctness are still accredited. Mind you, Thomas Sowell's new book Economic Facts and Fallacies points out some of the absurdities in the accreditation process in general, not related to this issue: * How the extraordinary protections and prerogatives enjoyed by faculty members at colleges today permit not only a great deal of self-indulgence, but also corruption. * Why professors tend to focus on narrow subjects rather than broad analyses -- to the detriment of educational quality. * The huge incentive colleges and universities have for keeping tuition high enough to be unaffordable for large numbers of students. * Why faculty tenure is one of the main reasons why college tuition rates are so high. Sowell raises the example of the University of Colorado's law school. Although 92% of its graduates passed the bar exam on the first try, the American Bar Association threatened its accreditation. The ABA's excuses were lack of the "diversity" in faculty, that too many courses were taught by adjunct profs (lawyers teaching part time), and that not enough money was spent on law library materials. So the university had to build a new law library building, which more than doubled tuition fees. One would think that producing more graduates with less money was a good thing. But the ABA basically imposed a tariff to protect other law schools from the competition of the University of Colorado's cheaper school.Jonathan Sarfati_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

"Is “I don’t know for sure” such an evil statement?" If you are deviating from a party line apparently it is. Look what happens when you question Darwinism ? We shouldn't tolerate the behavior in allies that would be criticsed in opponents. Leave that to the lefties.Jason Rennie_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Due to the fact that so many of their beliefs aren't established science, and so many flatly contradict established science, I don't see how this is a problem. Imagine if the Flat Earth Society was trying to offer science degrees. If they were turned down would that mean that "Big Science" is trying to supress flat earth research?dreamwalker007_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

scordova: "As a creationist myself, I haven’t always been enamored with ICR’s demonization of their Christian brethren who sincerely believed in an Old Earth." Perhaps you have a problem with Christ's statement, "If they don't believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if someone should rise from the dead"? "I’m not so sure that ICR is above reproach. They pressure students to agree with a party line." Saying that the first three days in Gen. 1 are necessarily 24 hours is eisegesis. The text doesn't specify any length at all. All it specifies is exactly one dark/light cycle per day and a precise sequence. Of course, this eliminates millions of years in terms of 365.25-day years. I think that 24 hours/day is the most likely for the first three days, but the text doesn't insist on it. The initial big ball of water was used to make everything. That big a mass would have necessarily generated a variety of isotopes when separated. The stuff at the center would have been a slurry of basic particles. When pressure was removed due to separation of the waters, they would have auto-assembled into the elements which would have reacted chemically with one another, ionized, dissolved in super-hot water, etc. Humphreys goes into this in his papers. Long ages aren't required nor is any change in decay rates. Humphreys' theory is philosophy, but it might be true. john1989: Mix together equal parts hope, faith, stubbornness, blindness, belief in magic, superstition, and wishful thinking and you have an evolutionist. Do evolutionists understand how life was originally formed or any real genetic/epigenetic/selective testable mechanism that explains fossils? No. The only explanation they have is "magic" and the only recourse "superstition".thogan_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Señor Cordova, Can't get into your Young Cosmos blog but maybe if you're interested you could snatch my address from UD and mail me and I'll send you a copy of my heretical The First Two Verses. It's rather Old Earthy but neither Day Agey nor Gap-Theoretical. I'd be interested in what you think.Rude_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

I'm sorry, but my experience with ICR is that they are gifted editors (rejectors) of scientific evidence. I would never pursue a degree with them myself, nor would I be quick to employ someone with such a degree in a field that required an understanding of the pre-history of the earth. I remember this application popping up. I am not particularly disappointed that it is rejected. I hope that the ACLJ doesn't waste its hard-earned money and talent on this one.bFast_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

I think this is a tough call. As a creationist myself, I haven't always been enamored with ICR's demonization of their Christian brethren who sincerely believed in an Old Earth. Someone can be wrong, but that does not deserve being labeled as some sort of malefactor.... I'm not so sure that ICR is above reproach. They pressure students to agree with a party line. That's hard to justify as a "scientific" approach. I don't know that I'd be accepted in the ICR grad school because I don't think YEC is a settled fact. Is "I don't know for sure" such an evil statement?scordova_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

I just got to say, knowing most people who read this probably don't think too highly of young earth creationism, I'm surprised by the amount of tolerance/respect for creationists(such as myself) you folks give. I was wondering if any ID blogs would mention the intolerance with ICR. Thank you.Noremacam_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

If the basis of the decision is that the Institute for Creation Research is run by mostly Christians, I predict involvement from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), as the ACLU is often slow to defend those discriminated on the basis of Christian religion. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.William Wallace_{April 30, 2008
April
04
Apr
30
30
2008
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply