+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 32
  1. #1
    Chip is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    2,280

    School teaching creation denied accreditation

    This from Discover Magazine.
    Creationists suffer another legal defeat

    The Institute for Creation Research — one of the biggest nonsense-peddlers in the 6000 year history of the world — was handed a nice defeat this week. That link to the National Center for Science Education (the good guys) has all the info you need, but to summarize: the ICR moved from California to Texas. In the previous state, for reasons beyond understanding, they were able to grant Master’s degrees in their graduate school. But Texas didn’t recognize their accreditation, so they filed to get it approved.

    Not so surprisingly, scientists and educators rose in protest, and in 2008 the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board — the organization that grants accreditation — denied the ICR. The creationists appealed. In the meantime, they also tried to extend their ability to grant degrees temporarily while the lawsuit continued. What happened this week is that the extension as denied.

    And I mean denied. Check out what the court said:

    It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff [the 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.

    That’s not surprising, as that’s the only kind of information the ICR is capable of producing. Not to mention wrong. See the Related Posts links below for lots more on the ICR’s recent follies.

    As far as I can tell, this defeat means that the ICR is still seeking accreditation, but until and unless it does, it cannot grant degrees in Texas.

    So what can be said about this? Oh, let me quote one of the pithiest and to-the-point minds of our day:

    <Nelson Muntz>Haha!</Nelson Muntz>
    My guess is they were California-approved. You'd think they would have checked whether they'd have problems before moving to Texas. But the judge sure gave them a beat-down.

  2. #2
    japhy4529 is offline House Bassist
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    1,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    This from Discover Magazine.


    My guess is they were California-approved. You'd think they would have checked whether they'd have problems before moving to Texas. But the judge sure gave them a beat-down.
    A well deserved beat down at that! :D
    Tom
    B.S., Behavioral Science - Bellevue University 2010
    A.S., Liberal Studies - Excelsior College 2009

  3. #3
    Maniac Craniac is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    punoɹɐ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
    Posts
    5,358
    Creation = True
    Creationism = False

    Those people not only have no clue about how science works, they also have not even the most minute idea what the Bible teaches. I don't think that everything that they do is bad, and there are times that they make some compelling points (ones which mirror my own reasons for believing in creation). However, if they truly had as much faith as they claim to, they wouldn't have to expend their funds and energy trying to destroy the reputations and livelihoods of sincere hard-working scientists.

    I know that not everything presented in science textbooks is correct. Anyone who can think independently should know at least that, but waging a war against the entire scientific community is not just frivolous, its unchristian.

    Besides, I don't think they need accreditation to carry on their mission. They, their supporters, and potential students, all believe that they have a greater purpose to what they are doing. This isn't necessarily a defeat for them as much as it is a victory of the no-life internet skeptics.
    Last edited by Maniac Craniac; 06-24-2010 at 04:59 AM.
    BA, Social Sciences ---- Thomas Edison State College -------- AA, Liberal Arts ---- Excelsior College

    I say do what makes you happy -- if you can afford it. - CalDog

  4. #4
    AV8R is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    1,691
    Wow! That article couldn't possible be the least bit biased, could it? Calling one side the "good guys" instantly removes any ounce of credibility from the article. Presumably, the side with a differing opinion are the "bad guys?"
    BS Excelsior College 1997 (Sociology)
    BS Peru State College 2009 (Accounting)
    MBA Regis University 2002

  5. #5
    Maniac Craniac is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    punoɹɐ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by AV8R View Post
    Wow! That article couldn't possible be the least bit biased, could it? Calling one side the "good guys" instantly removes any ounce of credibility from the article. Presumably, the side with a differing opinion are the "bad guys?"
    It's a blog from Phil Plait. I am a fan of his website, but after reading that article and a few others from that blog, I have less respect for him. He is divisive, arrogant and like most of the internet skeptics I have come across, narcissistic and immature.
    BA, Social Sciences ---- Thomas Edison State College -------- AA, Liberal Arts ---- Excelsior College

    I say do what makes you happy -- if you can afford it. - CalDog

  6. #6
    Caulyne Barron is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    48
    Not sure how it works in TX, but if it were the state board, wouldn't it be their license, rather than accreditation? If they refuse to give them a license to grant degrees in the state (required by most accrediting bodies before they'll even look at you), that's a big problem that they should have figured out before moving!! Wow.

  7. #7
    BillDayson is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    5,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    This from Discover Magazine...

    My guess is they were California-approved. You'd think they would have checked whether they'd have problems before moving to Texas. But the judge sure gave them a beat-down.
    I'm suprised that 'Discover' printed something like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Discover
    The Institute for Creation Research — one of the biggest nonsense-peddlers in the 6000 year history of the world — was handed a nice defeat this week... to summarize: the ICR moved from California to Texas. In the previous state, for reasons beyond understanding, they were able to grant Master's degrees in their graduate school.
    The ICR has a history in California that the author might have tried to learn about.

    ICR were California approved. When the ICR rolled out graduate programs that were ostensibly in the sciences, but were actually in Biblical apologetics, the BPPVE (or its predecessor) withdrew their state approval. The ICR took the state to court and the court found for the ICR, ruling on academic freedom grounds that the state has no authority to mandate academic program content, on the university level at least.

    So not only did the state have to restore the ICR's state approval, it was effectively prevented from looking at program content in future approval decisions.

    But Texas didn't recognize their accreditation, so they filed to get it approved.
    That sentence sounds confused.

    Texas has a religious exemption I believe, so if ICR simply wanted to award degrees with religious degree titles, presumably it could.

    This argument is more subtle than that. There have already been a number of threads about this ICR v. TX case, and if I recall the details correctly, the issue is a degree program that's ostensibly in the subject of 'Science Educationx'. I'm guessing that the ICR's intention is to produce people who are formally qualified to teach science subjects in Texas K-12 schools, at least in the more fundyish private Christian schools.

    Not so surprisingly, scientists and educators rose in protest, and in 2008 the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board — the organization that grants accreditation — denied the ICR. The creationists appealed.
    The THECB doesn't grant accreditation. It licenses schools to legally operate. I believe that they responded as the state of California did earlier, denying a license to ICR as long as it insists on offering the Science Educationx program. (Which exceeds the scope of a religious exemption.) And the ICR reacted just as they had done in California, by going to court.

    In the meantime, they also tried to extend their ability to grant degrees temporarily while the lawsuit continued. What happened this week is that the extension as denied.
    So ICR wasn't "beat down". The ICR's suit hasn't even resulted in a judgement yet. This was just a mid-course motion in which the ICR asked for permission to operate while the case continued. The judge denied that.

    And I mean denied. Check out what the court said:
    It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff [the 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.
    Apparently the motion was denied for procedural reasons.

    That's not surprising, as that's the only kind of information the ICR is capable of producing. Not to mention wrong. See the Related Posts links below for lots more on the ICR's recent follies...
    And our science journalist at 'Discover' finishes off with insults that I've snipped.

    My own opinion is that 'creation science' is pretty much an oxymoron. I think that I agree pretty emphatically with the THECB's position on this.

    But with allies like this 'Discover' idiot, it's just embarassing.

  8. Advertisement

  9. #8
    Maniac Craniac is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    punoɹɐ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by BillDayson View Post
    My own opinion is that 'creation science' is pretty much an oxymoron. I think that I agree pretty emphatically with the THECB's position on this.

    But with allies like this 'Discover' idiot, it's just embarassing.
    That 'Discover' idiot is Phil Plait, one of the world's most well-known and prolific skeptics. He's a part of the James Randi/Derren Brown/Penn and Teller/Richard Dawkins inner circle. To his credit, he is the main voice in the anti-Lunar Hoax Conspiracy campaign. To his detriment, well yeah, you read what he wrote.
    BA, Social Sciences ---- Thomas Edison State College -------- AA, Liberal Arts ---- Excelsior College

    I say do what makes you happy -- if you can afford it. - CalDog

  10. #9
    Chip is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    2,280
    You can add John Bear to the skeptics list. He's a member of the Skeptic Society or whatever it's called. :)

    I have no problem with skepticism, and John and I have had a number of interesting (and polite) discussions (I wouldn't even call them 'debates') on various issues that are controversial with the skeptics (homeopathy, etc.)

    My problem with James Randi is that he isn't a skeptic, he's a grumpy, closed-minded guy who won't let scientific data get in the way of whatever beliefs he happens to hold.

    As John told me once, a true skeptic says "prove it to me" but believes that anything he knows (or thinks he knows) is subject to change if new data comes in. My experience with everything I've read of James Randi's work is that he decided long ago what he does and doesn't believe in, and isn't interested when he runs across facts that contradict his world view.

  11. #10
    Maniac Craniac is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    punoɹɐ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Chip View Post
    a true skeptic says "prove it to me" but believes that anything he knows (or thinks he knows) is subject to change if new data comes in.
    Then that would make me a skeptic, too. Would they hate to know that one of them was not an atheist? :D

    I stay out of the debates themselves for the same reason I go to another train car when an individual or group is making a scene. Its just not worth it.
    BA, Social Sciences ---- Thomas Edison State College -------- AA, Liberal Arts ---- Excelsior College

    I say do what makes you happy -- if you can afford it. - CalDog

  12. #11
    leo
    leo is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    192

    Angry Move to Off Topic discussions Please

    I think this thread should be moved to the "Off Topic discussions".

  13. #12
    Maniac Craniac is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    punoɹɐ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by leo View Post
    I think this thread should be moved to the "Off Topic discussions".
    I'd rather leave it here and let it naturally progress back to its original topic. However, I don't think there is much more to say than what Bill already laid out in his post.
    BA, Social Sciences ---- Thomas Edison State College -------- AA, Liberal Arts ---- Excelsior College

    I say do what makes you happy -- if you can afford it. - CalDog

  14. #13
    JBjunior is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    AK/NC/CT
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by Maniac Craniac View Post
    I'd rather leave it here and let it naturally progress back to its original topic. However, I don't think there is much more to say than what Bill already laid out in his post.
    Even on the original topic it doesn't belong here and should be moved to the accreditation board. I think the negative religious view would warrant a move to off topic as well but that is for a Moderator to decide ;-) .
    Last edited by JBjunior; 06-24-2010 at 11:51 AM.

  15. #14
    Ian Anderson is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    4,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Maniac Craniac View Post
    Then that would make me a skeptic, too. Would they hate to know that one of them was not an atheist? :D
    .................
    I belong to the Skeptics Society also; although their magazine does discuss religion (not all negatively) it covers a wide range of other topics.
    Check out an issue of their magazine at your local library or review its contents on line at Skeptic
    In the last issue (Vol. 15, No. 3) there were great articles on medical screening tests and on language software programs.
    Authors bios are included and many articles include source references.

  16. Advertisement

  17. #15
    leo
    leo is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    192

    Unhappy

    I still fail to see the connection with "distance learning" in this thread.?!

    Oh well...

  18. #16
    Maniac Craniac is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    punoɹɐ ƃuıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
    Posts
    5,358

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by leo View Post
    I still fail to see the connection with "distance learning" in this thread.?!

    Oh well...
    Now that I think of it, you and JB are right. Unfortunately, I still haven't learned what all of these extra little buttons do, so we'll see if another, less newbian mod, can move it (and teach me how). That is, unless, you don't mind me accidentally clicking the unlabeled Implode Universe button that Chip installed somewhere on this site.
    BA, Social Sciences ---- Thomas Edison State College -------- AA, Liberal Arts ---- Excelsior College

    I say do what makes you happy -- if you can afford it. - CalDog

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15