Creationist school's plea is denied by state board

[The Scotsman]

April 24, 2008, 10:09PM
Creationist school's plea is denied by state board
Plan to offer a science master's degree is voted down unanimously

By JEANNIE KEVER
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle


With virtually no discussion, the state's Higher Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously Thursday to deny a request by a Bible-based school and research institute to offer a master's degree in science education.

Leaders of the Institute for Creation Research were in the audience but were not allowed to address the board.

"So be it," said the institute's CEO, Henry Morris III.

Members of the board's Academic Excellence and Research Committee had voted Wednesday after a public hearing and discussion to recommend that the request by the Dallas-based group be denied.

Thursday, Committee Chairwoman Lynn Phillips of Bastrop, suggested that no more public discussion be allowed.

The issue was whether the institute, whose leaders believe in creationism, or that the world was literally created as recounted in the Bible, could adequately prepare its graduates to teach science in middle schools and high schools. Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes had found — and board members agreed — that it could not.

Board Vice Chairman A.W. "Whit" Riter III, in the only public comment before the vote, said after looking at the background material, he simply felt "the program presented to us was inconsistent with Coordinating Board rules.

"I still question that science can come to one conclusion (about the origin of life), but as a board, I think we need to be very sensitive," said Riter, a businessman from Tyler.

Several board members pressed Paredes and other coordinating board staff members Wednesday on whether the institute had been treated differently because of its founding religious beliefs. They were told "no," that the objections to the program had been based upon academic quality.

Thursday's decision ended the issue, but probably only temporarily. Morris said Thursday that the institute has not decided on its next step, but that it is likely to either appeal or file a new proposal.

jeannie.kever@chron.com

.......................................................................................


I guess its okay to live ones life 3 fries short of a happy meal but to be to run schools it makes it pretty difficult to be taken seriously if you believe the world was created 6000 years ago etc. - makes one wonder what sort of reality people like this inhabit

Morris said Thursday that the institute has not decided on its next step, but that it is likely to either appeal or file a new proposal.

...should be an interesting debate if they decide to appeal!

 

[vyo476]

I was still doing high school science three years ago. They taught us evolution and creationism, although not with equal footing, as there is more scientific evidence to back up evolution than creationism (which requires a more metaphysical discussion than belongs in a biology classroom).

If my biology teacher didn't know anything about evolution, I wouldn't have recieved both sides of the debate. Granted, my biology teacher was lacking in a number of categories, but she knew the material well enough. I don't see the Board's decision here as religious discrimination but as maintaining higher standards of education. They do not preclude the teaching of creationism with this decision, only stating that it cannot be the only side taught.

 

[9sublime]

Couldn't be happier.

 

[numinus]

Considering that general relativity and the cosmological constant were direct results of einstein's 'creationist' leaning, I wonder if we should allow these subjects taught in school as well?

What nonsense!

 

[PLC1]

Score one for rational thought, and in Texas no less!

 

[Coyote]

Another blatant case of Christian persecution....


since when does science have to be real science in order to be taught as science eh?

 

[numinus]

Another blatant case of Christian persecution....


since when does science have to be real science in order to be taught as science eh?

Eh?

"The issue was whether the institute, whose leaders believe in creationism, or that the world was literally created as recounted in the Bible, could adequately prepare its graduates to teach science in middle schools and high schools. Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes had found — and board members agreed — that it could not."

A lot of universities are run by religious orders.

 

[top gun]

There are multiple good reasons for this decision.

There are fundamental differences between the science aspects of evolution and the "faith" of creationism. There is actual scientific tracking and testing that leads to the theory of evolution. There was a time when people thought the world was flat and that gravity was God's hand holding us on this earth. Over time trial & error, learning, research, in short education taught us more & more.

Creationism is truly all "faith" in stories that have been passed down over time. The funniest thing that comes up is when "creationist" suddenly make new things up to plug holes in their story. For instance only after the fact was brought to their attention that dinosaur fossil evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were here on earth... they then added to their story that dinosaurs were intermingled with man at the time of Jesus and shockingly even on the Ark. Even though in no biblical writings were they ever... ever... there. (for nonsense... Goggle Creation Museum)

Of course the other thing is religion "creationism" while being fine as a specific class on religion is not a single religious perspective across the board.

The fact is different religions have completely different views on how the earth was created. So unless we're prepared to offer everything from Buddhist theology to Christian theology and everything in between as science... keeping creationism in a class on religions of the world and not in science class seems very reasonable.

 

[Pandora]

I guess its okay to live ones life 3 fries short of a happy meal but to be to run schools it makes it pretty difficult to be taken seriously if you believe the world was created 6000 years ago etc. - makes one wonder what sort of reality people like this inhabit

I am not sure creationists say the world is 6000 years old, but if they do thats kind of silly.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


You can't replenish something that was not plenished before. This is only the beginning of our story not the beginning of the planet and universe and beyond.

 

[numinus]

There are multiple good reasons for this decision.

There are fundamental differences between the science aspects of evolution and the "faith" of creationism. There is actual scientific tracking and testing that leads to the theory of evolution. There was a time when people thought the world was flat and that gravity was God's hand holding us on this earth. Over time trial & error, learning, research, in short education taught us more & more.

The 'fundamental difference', as you put it, between creationism and science disappears when you keep in mind that the bible is ALLEGORICAL.

Creationism is truly all "faith" in stories that have been passed down over time. The funniest thing that comes up is when "creationist" suddenly make new things up to plug holes in their story. For instance only after the fact was brought to their attention that dinosaur fossil evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were here on earth... they then added to their story that dinosaurs were intermingled with man at the time of Jesus and shockingly even on the Ark. Even though in no biblical writings were they ever... ever... there. (for nonsense... Goggle Creation Museum)

Creationism is merely an umbrella term to describe cosmological models that operate beyond empirical evidence.

There is NO DIRECT empirical evidence for, say, string theory, or vsl (varying speed of ligh), or the cosmological constant, lambda. But that doesnt stop the physical cosmology and theoretical physics community to say these things, now, does it? In fact, all these have been proposed by scientist struggling to find some rationality in the cosmological riddles we observe today.

When you accept that the universe came from a space-time singularity, then that point at which nothing becomes something IS CREATION.

Of course the other thing is religion "creationism" while being fine as a specific class on religion is not a single religious perspective across the board.

The fact is different religions have completely different views on how the earth was created. So unless we're prepared to offer everything from Buddhist theology to Christian theology and everything in between as science... keeping creationism in a class on religions of the world and not in science class seems very reasonable.

Religion isn't the only field of inquiry that arrived at creationism. Western philosophical tradition, prior to 17th(?) century materialism, is quite comfortable with it.

And if you really think about it, materialism is one of the most indefensible positions in metaphysics. It is something completely at odds with the human rational and intuitive faculties.

 

[top gun]

I am not sure creationists say the world is 6000 years old, but if they do thats kind of silly.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


You can't replenish something that was not plenished before. This is only the beginning of our story not the beginning of the planet and universe and beyond.

Come on you know better.

It's the standard Christian theological line that the earth is of the 6000 or so year time-line. Turn on TV sometime... evangelicals say it ALL the time.

It's kinda irrelevant to be pick out nuances in writings that were written by man anyway but if one were to try I'd say replenish fits fine. Replenish doesn't only mean something was already there before...

Replenish:
To furnish; to stock, as a house or farm.
To finish; to complete; to perfect.

 

[Pandora]

Come on you know better.

It's the standard Christian theological line that the earth is of the 6000 or so year time-line. Turn on TV sometime... evangelicals say it ALL the time.

It's kinda irrelevant to be pick out nuances in writings that were written by man anyway but if one were to try I'd say replenish fits fine. Replenish doesn't only mean something was already there before...

Replenish:
To furnish; to stock, as a house or farm.
To finish; to complete; to perfect.

how can you RE furnish something that was never furnished or RE stock something that was never stocked?

I dont really listen to tv preachers I just read and get my own conclusions. I am glad the schools dont teach this sort of stuff though. It already takes to much time to un program the retarded things the school is currently teaching. I dont need more work!

 

[top gun]

numinus;36452]The 'fundamental difference', as you put it, between creationism and science disappears when you keep in mind that the bible is ALLEGORICAL.

Being figurative (ALLEGORICAL) isn't fact. While not all science theory can be proven the fact is much can. As we develop we understand more & more.

This is not the case of creationism. This story only randomly interjects new theory when someone points out a gaping hole. There is no new test or new evidence. It is solely a personal belief or "faith".

Science works like this: I have never been hit by a bus. But I know by human existence trial & error that pain occurs when a body is impacted by a large object. So without being hit by the bus I still know it would hurt. It doesn't explain every situation but it is a learning path.

Creationism works like this: If you were around at the beginning of time fairies would fly out of your butt and you would never be hungry. There is no part of this that can be proven. Without more it's only a story... a fable.

 

[top gun]

how can you RE furnish something that was never furnished or RE stock something that was never stocked?

I dont really listen to tv preachers I just read and get my own conclusions. I am glad the schools dont teach this sort of stuff though. It already takes to much time to un program the retarded things the school is currently teaching. I dont need more work!

I'm just saying from a dictionary standpoint I've given you two different meanings other than the one you cite that something had to be there before... dictionary.com

Replenish:
To furnish; to stock, as a house or farm.
To finish; to complete; to perfect.

Like I said it's all a dog chasing it's own tail anyway because man wrote it in the first place, in another language no less, and then just passed it along for even more interpretation. One persons theology can just as easily be someone else's Aesop's Fable. That's one great reason why separation of church and state is the fair thing to do.

 

[numinus]

Being figurative (ALLEGORICAL) isn't fact. While not all science theory can be proven the fact is much can. As we develop we understand more & more.

Of course allegory is not fact. Not fact, however, does not mean that there is no fundamental truth to it.

This is not the case of creationism. This story only randomly interjects new theory when someone points out a gaping hole. There is no new test or new evidence. It is solely a personal belief or "faith".

Science works like this: I have never been hit by a bus. But I know by human existence trial & error that pain occurs when a body is impacted by a large object. So without being hit by the bus I still know it would hurt. It doesn't explain every situation but it is a learning path.

Creationism works like this: If you were around at the beginning of time fairies would fly out of your butt and you would never be hungry. There is no part of this that can be proven. Without more it's only a story... a fable.

I'm sorry but you seem to be seriously misunderstanding the nature of science, or any form of human knowledge, for that matter.

All fields of human inquiry start from a set of axioms. In mathematics --commutative, associative, identity, etc., in physics -- conservation of mass and energy, invariance of the speed of light, causation, etc., in logic -- axiomatic set theory, etc.

Axioms have no formal proof BUT are always true. In fact, NO field of inquiry is possible without one or more axiom at its foundation.

So you see, the natural sciences, mathematics and logic would crumble just as easily as theology and philosophy WHEN YOU NEGATE THEIR UNDERLYING AXIOMS.