Religion as science in Texas: Graduate degrees in creationism?


The venerable missionary group known as the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) moved its headquarters from California to Dallas a few months ago. Anyone who follows science education in America is familiar with this group, who deny that the Earth can be more than a few thousands of years old, who argue that geology, astronomy, chemistry and biology are all based on faulty premises.

Dallas is a good location for a missionary agency that flies to churches around the U.S. to make pitches for money and preach the gospel of their cult. DFW Airport provides same-day flights to most of the U.S. Airlines are glad to have their business.

Years ago ICR tried to get approval from the State of California to grant graduate degrees in science, because their brand of creationism is not taught in any research university, or any other institution with an ethics code that strives for good information and well-educated graduates. ICR got permission only after setting up their own accrediting organization which winks, blinks and turns a blind eye to what actually goes on in science courses taught there. It is unclear if anyone has kept count, but there appear to be a few people with advanced degrees in science from this group, perhaps teaching in the public schools, or in charter schools, or in odd parochial settings.

With a new home in Texas, ICR needs permission of Texas authorities to grant graduate degrees. Texas Observer reported that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board put off consideration of the issue until their meeting of January 24 (no action was planned for this meeting, so failure to grant this authority to ICR should not be taken as any sign that the board is opposed to granting it).

Humor aside, this is a major assault on the integrity of education in Texas. For example, here is a statement on college quality from the Higher Education Coordinating Board; do you think ICR’s program contributes in any way, or detracts from these goals?

Enrolling and graduating hundreds of thousands more students is a step in the right direction. But getting a degree in a poor quality program will not give people the competitive edge they need in today’s world economy. Academic rigor and excellence are essential – both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. We also need to attract and support more research in the state for the academic and economic benefits it provides.

Check out the Texas Observer‘s longer post on the issue, and since comments are not enabled there, how about stating here your views on the issue? Comment away.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Texas Citizens for Science.

No, this is not a joke.  Here is the agenda for the meeting this week, in .pdf form.

20 Responses to Religion as science in Texas: Graduate degrees in creationism?

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Science is always open to that suggestion. The issue is, what do we have evidence for. Science doesn’t generally speculate without information. The “might be God” hypothesis is okay, but it’s not one that is suggested by any set of evidence proposed seriously by anyone. Because there are a lot of solid questions science does pursue, based on real evidence, the God hypothesis doesn’t get a lot of analysis.

    But creationists aren’t searching for the evidence, either — and so their demands that science discuss the issue are simply unreasonable.

    Like

  2. Wow, this is a post with some serious legs!

    You know, this whole ridiculous arguement could probably be shelved if evolutionists would simply say, “yes, evolution might be a system created by God”, (which I’m willing to bet a lot of science guys believe), and the Creationists would simply say, “We believe that God set up the system, but we cannot prove it scientifically”. Let’s face it, the existance of God isnt something that can proven scientifically, so the debate is rather pointless, at least as far as science is concerned.

    Except that, certainly as far as Creationists are concerned, the debate has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with temporal power.

    Like

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Mike Adams’ http://www.naturalnews.com explains that all of your precious pharmaceutical “miracles” are really what’s killing people. This website is about natural health and has nothing to do with Christianity.

    Excuse me. I left my tinfoil hat vending machine in my other pants.

    Like

  4. Paige says:

    “It kills people, both in this life and the next.”

    And this is where you are wrong, on both accounts. I could be as arrogant and abusive as you, and call you a liar, but instead I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I am sure you believe what you are saying, therefore I shall not stoop to your level by calling you a liar.

    There is an interesting website that proofs your claims to evolution’s curative principals to be false. Mike Adams’ http://www.naturalnews.com explains that all of your precious pharmaceutical “miracles” are really what’s killing people. This website is about natural health and has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, from many of the author’s comments, I would gather that he adheres to some new age spirituality that is far from Christianity. But in my view, he has unknowingly proven that God’s food heals and man’s food and man’s medicine kills. So get off you high horse and find out who’s really killing people.

    Your comments throughout this website indicate that you know absolutely nothing of the next life. There is only one way to heaven, belief in evolution is not it, and belief in creation is not it. Faith in Jesus Christ is the only way. I do pray you find your way.

    You are a rude and insolent person, one not worth arguing with any longer. Jesus warned us: “Do not throw your pearls to swine.” Mat 7:6

    Thank you for the opportunity to post my comments anyway. If nothing else, it has been a most interesting discourse. May God bless you, whether you like it or not!

    Like

  5. Ed Darrell says:

    Paige said:

    You equate belief in God as creator of the universe with denial of the Holocaust, denial of the ill health effects of smoking, and denial of the harms of drug abuse, yet this correlation makes no sense.

    No. Belief in God is what I hope will pull creationists out. Creationism is the belief that can be equated to Holocaust denial, denial of smoking’s effects and other harms. In face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, creationists insist that their beliefs should get a free pass into science classes despite their failure on the lab benches of science (beliefs which are not Christian any more than swimming is a Christian activity because the YMCA has swimming pools). Do not confuse creationism with Christianity, do not confuse creationism with faith in God. They are not at all the same thing.

    Smoking causes cancer, so if you deny that, you stand the risk of getting cancer. Drug abuse can lead to serious illness or death. If you abuse drugs, you stand the chance of getting ill or dying. But you still have refused to tell me what the harm of believing creation may be.

    If you believe in creationism and learn it instead of the facts, you’re going to miss out on better medical care, better crops, and a great understanding of nature. No harm, unless you’re the cancer victim whose cancer doesn’t get cured.

    Creationism is quackery in medicine. Every dime spent on creationism is a dime stolen from breast cancer research. Every minute spent learning creationism is two minutes stolen from cystic fibrosis and AIDS research.

    What harm is there in stopping research into cures and treatments for cancer and AIDS? That’s the harm of creationism.

    Then there is the spiritual harm. I can think of few other things that get otherwise good Christians to rant and rave about false stuff, tell lies willingly, and otherwise make themselves sowers of strife and iniquity.

    Creationism is false science. It’s impossible to keep up an argument in favor of creationism for more than about five minutes without resorting to outright whopping falsehoods. Any activity that leads good people into such paths of iniquity is, per se harmful to their morals.

    Other than implying that those who believe in creation may not seek cures for illness like diabetes, which is unsubstantieated and, quite frankly, ridiculous. I probably know more about curing disease than you do, and what I know has nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate.

    Almost all of modern medicine is now grounded in evolution. All of our pharmaceutical research is based on evolution theory, especially in testing. Here, go get a scent of the stakes from one of the best people to explain it, Randy Nesse:
    http://www.evolutionandmedicine.org/
    or buy the CD-ROM and get 38 lectures on 38 different areas of medicine with the importance of evolution theory:

    Click to access HST_Evolution_and_Medicine.pdf

    Christians do indeed have higher obligations. Our obligation is to our Creator and our Savior. Evolution, that is the development of one creature into another creature, does not exist.

    Christians have an obligation to the truth. Speciation — the development of one creature into another creature — has been observed hundreds of times. You cannot eat at McDonalds without eating the practical results of evolution, of modern beef from the ancient aurochs, of potatoes, of tomatoes, of wheat, of maize (especially for sweetener). Your claim that evolution does not exist is falsified by any one incident of evolution. We have at least hundreds of examples. The produce aisle at your supermarket features broccoli, cauliflower and radishes — all from the plant Jesus knew as mustard (perhaps you should read the parable of the mustard seed again; Jesus seems to have the evolution thing down really well). Then there is Canola, which was bred from rapeseed, which was bred from mustard as well. There are grapefruit, a species unknown 200 years ago, and red grapefruit, from a sport mutation in the 1940s — exactly the sort of sport mutation that creationists must deny to claim evolution doesn’t happen.

    Now, if you know that red grapefruit exist, what in the world would lead you, as a Christian, to deny that it CAN exist?

    To use your words, I could easily call it unsubstantiated woo and unholy superstition.

    But that would be false. Evolution is clearly demonstrated, as testified by thousands of peer-reviewed research articles each year. Why would you spread such a falsehood?

    ICR, as a Christian organization, it standing true to their obligation to God.

    Jesus said people who lie to innocent children and lead them astray may as well put a millstone around their neck to jump into a lake. I do not believe that God said it’s good to lie. Got a citation? It’s not in any of the translations of scripture I have.

    You claim that creationism is not Christian doctrine. If the book of Genesis is not Christian doctrine, then what is?

    Nothing in Genesis denies evolution. Only the Darbyists, who insist against Christian tradition, history, and scripture itself that Genesis is literal, can distort scripture to deny evolution. Are you a Darbyist? If not, why take Darby’s reading of the Bible? What’s wrong with the traditional Christian readings given Genesis by Catholics, Episcopalians and Anglicans, Methodists, Mormons, Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, and others?

    There is nothing in Jesus’ teachings to deny evolution, nothing that says a believe in a literal Genesis is required, nor desired.

    The Christian doctrine in Genesis says that God is the ultimate motivator and cause in the universe. Among other things, based on that understanding, Christians have argued for 2,000 years that study of nature is study of God’s ways.

    Nature manifests evolution: Who in the heck are you to tell God He is wrong?

    In reality, it is the acceptance of evolution that pushes people to un-Christian behavior.

    At least it’s not necessary to lie about God’s creation to study evolution — in fact, lying is actively discouraged. Heck, in science, there is a formal process to track down and stamp out simple, unintentional error. Creationism insists on falsehoods, and gives medals to people who lie to state committees. I find it interesting, sometimes amusing and sometimes troubling, that creationists stop their claims when put under oath in federal court. In two federal trials, creationists confessed that there is no science in creationism, and that creationism is religious dogma.

    I also can find nothing in scripture that says it’s okay to lie except when faced with perjury penalties. I think Christians should strive for accuracy all the time, not only when threatened with jail for inaccuracy.

    You give us an impressive list of diseases, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, viruses, ulcers, bowel disease, cancer. How many of these has belief in evolution cured?

    If it were only one, that would be one more than creationism. No cures for diabetes yet, but treatments that keep people alive. Same for HIV/AIDS. Cures for several cancers, vaccinations for cancers, vaccinations for several other diseases, a hope for a lasting treatment for cystic fibrosis, treatments for allergies . . . you know, you can’t name any medical procedure or medicine from the past century and a half that is not based on applied evolution theory. It would be much easier for you to name those you think are not based on evolution, so we can point you to the research to correct your misinformation.

    As I said earlier, I know plenty about these diseases, and their cures, and what I know has nothing to do with my Christian faith.

    So it should do your faith no harm to abandon creationism for the truth, since what you know has nothing to do with Christianity. Or am I reading your statement too hopefully?

    Actually, it is belief that these conditions are our “evolutionary fate” that keeps us trapped in these illnesses.
    So you still have not given me a straight answer to the question, what harm is there in a belief in creation?

    It kills people, both in this life and the next.

    Like

  6. Ed Darrell says:

    No one is insisting that we replace “solid theory that keeps diabetics alive with unsubstantiated woo and unholy superstition.” That response was quite hostile and condescending. If we cannot be civil about this, then why are we debating?
    Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with keeping diabetics alive, and if anything, serves to hinder the effort.

    If you uncivilly urge that we teach woo in place of the science that keeps diabetics alive, and you don’t realize how insulting it is to threaten the lives of diabetics, we are discussing so you can gain enlightenment.

    Diabetes was a mystery until a surgery team in Germany accidentally discovered that removing a dog’s pancreas gave the dog diabetes. The team was using dogs as analogs to humans to practice surgery — since, after we understand from evolution theory, most of the systems in the two mammals are the same. Since we know dogs and humans share a common ancestors and, consequently, their pancreases do the same things, we understood that diabetes is a disease of the pancreas.

    Using animals, it was determined that insulin is the substance a pancrease secretes, whose absence is the cause of Type I diabetes. Again, based on evolutionary understandings.

    Since mammals are all related, and since human insulin was not a possibility at the time, insulin from horses, and then pigs and cows was used to treat human diabetes. Evolution provided the inspiration, and it explains why it works.

    Now, in the U.S., most diabetics get real human insulin, generated by e. coli bacteria that were engineered to have the genes that order cells to produce human insulin.

    Diabetes has been a killer disease identified since ancient Greek physicians named it. Applied evolution theory told us how the disease was caused, pointed to treatments using other animal products, and finally gave us human insulin created by other creatures.

    You didn’t know that, obviously.

    There are dozens of other diseases that now are treatable or curable due to applied evolution theory. Evolution theory works. Intelligent design theology doesn’t.

    Lives are at stake here. I’ll wager you have someone in your family who suffers from diabetes. Think hard about how much you are willing to sacrifice improvements in their care, shutting off the good research based on evolution, and substituting the worthless teaching of woo known as intelligent design.

    And don’t you dare lecture me about “civility” when you threaten the lives of millions of people with such ignorance. Stick to the discussion, stop assuming you have answers where you obviously don’t know the issue, and you’ll discover this is already a very civil discussion.

    Like

  7. Paige says:

    Ediacaran,

    You make a some valid points, and I would be happy to address them.

    You are right that there is a variety of creationist theories. And that is because it is ALL theory. It is impossible to prove any theory of creation, because we were not there. All we can do is examine the evidence and see where it leads us. Our interpretation of the evidence, whether creationist of evolutionist, is based on presuppositions. Keep in mind that there is a variety of different theories on evolution as well.

    I guess you could call me a “Young Earth Creationist.” I hesitate to call myself that because “young” is a relative term. Compared to me, the Earth is quite old! However, I acknowledge the term in its contradiction to Big Bang/Evolutionary theory. I believe the Earth is between 6000 and 7000 years old, that it was created by God in six days, and that Adam and Eve were real people who were the ancestors of all who are alive today. I also believe in Jesus Christ as my risen Lord and Savior.

    Why not a different variety? I think there is not enough room here to cover that one. But I guess to summarize it if I can, I believe in the Bible. I didn’t always accept the creation account, but organizations like ICR and AIG have explained it to me in a way that I find satisfactory. My personal analysis of the evidence presented to me has led me to my current beliefs, which would be true of all of us who are not scientists, which I guess leads into your next question.

    Your final question misses an important point. I am not claiming that I know more than the scientists. I am choosing which scientists to believe, just as you have to. Since we are debating this issue here in this silly online forum, and not in a public scientific arena, I am going to assume that you are not a scientist either, please correct me if I am wrong. There are two (primary) schools of thought on the creation of our universe, and majority does not make an idea right, only popular. We all must analyze the evidence before us and determine who we are going to believe.

    I hope that answers your questions satisfactorily.

    Like

  8. Paige says:

    Ed,
    No one is insisting that we replace “solid theory that keeps diabetics alive with unsubstantiated woo and unholy superstition.” That response was quite hostile and condescending. If we cannot be civil about this, then why are we debating?
    Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with keeping diabetics alive, and if anything, serves to hinder the effort.
    You equate belief in God as creator of the universe with denial of the Holocaust, denial of the ill health effects of smoking, and denial of the harms of drug abuse, yet this correlation makes no sense. Smoking causes cancer, so if you deny that, you stand the risk of getting cancer. Drug abuse can lead to serious illness or death. If you abuse drugs, you stand the chance of getting ill or dying. But you still have refused to tell me what the harm of believing creation may be. Other than implying that those who believe in creation may not seek cures for illness like diabetes, which is unsubstantieated and, quite frankly, ridiculous. I probably know more about curing disease than you do, and what I know has nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate.
    Christians do indeed have higher obligations. Our obligation is to our Creator and our Savior. Evolution, that is the development of one creature into another creature, does not exist. To use your words, I could easily call it unsubstantiated woo and unholy superstition. ICR, as a Christian organization, it standing true to their obligation to God.
    You claim that creationism is not Christian doctrine. If the book of Genesis is not Christian doctrine, then what is? In reality, it is the acceptance of evolution that pushes people to un-Christian behavior.
    You give us an impressive list of diseases, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, viruses, ulcers, bowel disease, cancer. How many of these has belief in evolution cured? As I said earlier, I know plenty about these diseases, and their cures, and what I know has nothing to do with my Christian faith. Actually, it is belief that these conditions are our “evolutionary fate” that keeps us trapped in these illnesses.
    So you still have not given me a straight answer to the question, what harm is there in a belief in creation?

    Like

  9. Ediacaran says:

    Paige, a lot of creationists claim to believe in Genesis, and yet they maintain contradictory positions. There are Old-Earth Creationists and Young-Earth Creationists; there are those creationists who believe the Sun and the rest of the universe orbit a stationary Earth (such as creationists Buow, Sandra and Marshall Hall), and there are even a few Flat Earth Creationists.

    What variety of creationist are you, and why that and not a different variety? And in whatever way your position contradicts mainstream science, please explain why the overwhelming majority of scientists have got it wrong, and a creationist electronics tech has it right. And do explain how your knowledge in molecular biology, genetics, physics and the fossil record is far superior to those scientists who are professionals in those fields.

    Like

  10. Ed Darrell says:

    I make no assumption, I only gauge from your responses that show so little understanding of what evolution theory is and what it says. Frankly, now I’m beginning to worry about your understanding of the Bible, too.

    What danger do I see in people failing to accept the facts of evolution, of insisting that we replace the solid theory that keeps diabetics alive with unsubstantiated woo and unholy superstition? No more danger than in those who deny the Holocaust, or those who deny that tobacco smoking causes cancer, or those who deny that drug abuse is harmful. I mean, it’s a free country, and we may believe any fool thing we wish. But there is no requirement that we believe in foolish things.

    I think Christians have higher obligations, however, and should pursue accuracy and truth. For example, ICR doesn’t teach evolution, they don’t even teach about evolution squarely. Their tactics are embarrassing when I consider they claim to be Christian. I would hope faith would have a greater effect on honesty and ability to see reality than ICR shows.

    If you have indeed looked at the evidence, I would urge you to go back and study it. If one sticks to a standard of scrupulous honesty, especially in the reporting of science, I think any Christian will walk away from creationism. It’s not Christian doctrine, it demands a denial of reality, and it tends to push people to unChristian behavior.

    In the Dark Ages, localities passed laws that required lepers to have criers go ahead of them and cry “UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!” It seems harsh, but of course it was a way to avoid infectious disease, and they believed Hansen’s disease to be infectious. I think fair warning is good. I would hope that anyone who is a creationist and claims to engage in science would alert their potential victims — er, customers — to their denial of reality. If the field of expertise requires any familiarity with evolution at all, say treating of infections, treatment of diabetes, treatment of cystic fibrosis, treatment of viruses, treatment of ulcers, treatment of bowel disease, treatment of cancers, and a few others, then I would hope the practitioners would understand that rational people might wish to know. Full disclosure.

    ICR has an excellent education program, for fundamentalists. It shouldn’t be confused with a Christian program, nor with science.

    Like

  11. Paige says:

    You make the assumption that I have not looked into all of the evidence. I was educated in a public school my friend, and excelled in science. I am well aware of all the supposed evidence. Look, I was an avid atheist for over 20 years, and have made all of the arguments you are making. After becoming a Christian, I still struggled over the whole evolution thing. Once I discovered scientists who accepted the Genesis account, things started making sense for me. I have examined the evidence, and accept the Genesis account.

    Now here’s my point. Having walked on both sides of the fence, I realize that each side looks completely crazy to the other. Understanding that makes me hesitant to call someone delusional, as you are willing to do. The point I was making in my original post is that we both look at each other’s point of view as being completely off the wall.

    Creation science does not stand in the way of curing disease. I happen to have a friend in my church who is a scientist directly involved in the disease fighting business. He works to discover new drugs that will treat or cure a variety of diseases. With each new discovery, he celebrates the wonder of God’s creation, while at the same time, mourning the fall of man that led to disease in the first place.

    And he has respect for his non-believing colleagues. Instead of saying “Get out of the new road if you can’t lend a hand,” he says” walk this road with me, we can do this together.”

    ICR has an excellent educational program, and THECB’s own advisory board says so. The only reason for this denial, as I said earlier, is fear. ICR teaches evolution, but they also teach the problems with it, and that’s what makes people scared.

    Listen, I believe in Genesis, ok? And I also am an electronics tech at a major manufacturing firm. I put in my 40 hours with a lot of other good techs. We believe a lot of different things, but we work together, we get along fine, and we go home. I pay taxes, I support various charities, and I work and live in a nice community with nice people of all faiths. I’m a normal guy. What danger do you see in a person not accepting evolution? If a student is interested in the sciences, they will be interested whether they accept evolution or not, as the very existance of ICR, as well as AIG, proves. If they are not interested in the sciences, then what difference does it make what anyone believes about evolution or creation?

    Pleaese answer that for me. What is the threat?

    Like

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    Here’s the deal, Paige: You do some research, demonstrate that mutations don’t occur, or don’t make different traits, or that geological strata don’t really exist despite Smith’s finding them all over England, or that genetics doesn’t really drive embryological development, you can teach it.

    If you genuinely think evolution is “wacky,” and you think that because you don’t understand that it drives the treatments for diabetes, cancer, and infectious disease, then please stay out of the classroom. Leave teaching to people who know an iota about what they instruct in.

    My basis for claiming the validity of evolution is the fact that it has been demonstrated on the lab bench and in the wild. There are a few formerly-real scientists, people with advanced degrees in science who suffer from some delusion that science no longer works. Fie on them. The rest of us worry about cancer and other diseases, and how to make crops go farther, faster. The old Dark Ages are rapidly agin’. Get out of the new road if you can’t lend a hand.

    What you say is demonstrably wrong. Would you be game for looking at real scientific information on evolution?

    Like

  13. Paige says:

    If you can get a degree in your wacky evolution garbage, and teach it to your kids, then why can’t I get a degree in my wacky creation garbage and teach it to my kids? Quite frankly, both points of view appear completely ridiculous in the eyes of the other, and neither can be proven 100%. Your only basis for claiming the validity of evolution is popular opinion. “Most scientists accept evolution as fact.” However, slavery, a flat earth, and bloodletting, to name a few, were all once popular ideas. I can produce many scientists, like those at ICR, and more at AIG, who believe otherwise. These are real scientists, with real degrees, and real brains. I say the only basis for fighting ICR’s attempt to award degrees is fear.

    Like

  14. Ed Darrell says:

    Then you’re missing the point, Dan. ICR is the group that has avoided for more than 40 years engaging in debate by doing research and publishing the results. ICR rarely does research, and it has never been published in any serious, truly peer-reviewed journal. ICR authors can publish in those journals as their other publications show, and two court cases have established that the journals show no bias against ICR work. The court cases also show that ICR simply does not write up research to submit to journals. They refuse to debate as serious scientists do. ICR opposes atomic theory directly in their questioning of radioactive decay — they claim it operates in fits and starts, at different rates, though no one has ever observed any such thing.

    Helium is much lighter than air. It rises to the top of the atmosphere and drifts off into space — it’s been measured doing so. Helium cannot concentrate on Earth. You may check the periodic table of elements, or most basic chemistry texts to find the properties of helium. I think that people who told you helium should concentrate should be prosecuted if they’re telling that to children. You should know better.

    Get facts straight? I have done so. Please do so yourself.

    Like

  15. Dan Hailey says:

    Seems to me that the evolutionary scientists are afraid to address the science presented by ICR! Instead they are reduced to name calling, setting up straw men and innuendo. Ed, you are right you are no nuclear physicist and I have a friend who is one too. Atomic theory is just that, theory. A theory that has evolved over several centuries and btw is still evolving. ICR never claimed to oppose that theory in radioactive decay they (a nuclear physicist who does real research) pointed out that the decay rates point to the fact that there should be more helium isotopes than there is if the Earth were a few billion years old. Get your facts right before you go criticizing something you obviously know nothing about.

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    I respect them for their not claiming creationism is science — when they do that, which is not often enough.

    Hearing them out is different from giving them license to misinstruct people who will teach children. Freedom of speech is one thing; freedom to claim that one’s wackiest ideas are solid theory that should be taught in graduate school is quite a different thing.

    See this post, and follow the links: ICR claims atomic theory isn’t accurate, that something during Noah’s flood changed the rules on atoms. I’m no nuclear physicist, but my nuclear physicist friends note that if atomic theory doesn’t hold true for radioactive decay, then we cannot trust the universe to hold together at all. Ever. How much of reality are we really expected to deny to keep these cults happy on Sunday?

    It’s one thing to understand that God occasionally shoots dice with the universe, as Einstein phrased it. It’s another thing to think God bets the entire universe just for a cheap drink. That looks to me the difference between science at the highest levels and the “science” taught at ICR.

    Like

  17. steven dawkins says:

    I respect this group, most of their staff actually have real degree’s in science from major universities. They are carefull to present strong science facts that really undermine evolution. I think we should hear them out

    Like

  18. […] But ICR was granting degrees in California. They hope to expand their sales in Texas, closer to the Bible Belt’s buckle. A state advisory group gave its approval Friday; now the final say rests with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which will consider the request next month. […]

    Like

  19. blueollie says:

    Ok, “goddidit”. Now where is my masters degree? :)

    Like

  20. […] Religion as science in Texas: Graduate degrees in creationism? […]

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes. While your e-mail will not show with comments, note that it is our policy not to allow false e-mail addresses. Comments with non-working e-mail addresses may be deleted.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: