School teaching creation denied accreditation

I see Randi in quite an opposite manner. Sure, he's come to his own conclusions, but he's invited contrary evidence many times over the years. Where is it?

 

This is Texas. The notion that they were denied because of the subject matter isn't consistent with the state's prior activity in this area. Most assuredly, they were rejected because their programs lacked sufficient academic rigor.

And "creation science" isn't science. It violates a very fundamental property of science. Instead of seeking answers to questions by pursuing evidence, it pursues evidence to support answers it has already decided upon. As a result, it rejects evidence contrary to its pre-determined conclusions. Science is always open to new evidence that creates new theory. "Creation science" is not.

 

With all due respect Rich, and I realize I'm stepping out of my league, but don't some scientists devote their lives to studying evolution or string theory or any number of other things that they would consider true, but not proven. There are a lot of assumptions that scientists stand on that would cause their current work to collapse if proven false. We built a multi-billion dollar particle smasher in an attempt to prove that a certain particle predicted by string theory exists (boson particle or something like that).

I suppose that I suspect much of science is agenda driven. Not the concept, the people. But what's wrong with scientists trying to prove a theory? That's all creationism is.

 

I agree, being a proponent of creationism myself. But everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and I have the greatest respect for those who would say that my views are bunk.

However, I'm not comfortable with where this debate is going. Everyone, let's please not get into a debate between religious and scientific philosophies as I don't think it's appropriate for this forum and I worry about this escalating. Let's stay on the topic of accreditation. You can start a new thread in the Off Topic section, if you would like.

 

No doubt.....

 

(I hope this is on-topic enough for Mr. Oliver, it has to do with process by which this school could lose accreditation)

You know what bothers me? The language of the judge. He should not be expressing strong partiality against a side before the trial is even over. It's probably common practice, but it seems one in that position ought to reserve judgment as much as possible until all arguments are exhausted.

 

Exactly - This is a basic tenent of science - a theory has to be falsifyable (for example some scientists are working on alternatives to the big bang theory).

Scientists prove a hypothesis, not a theory.

I mention this in case you have to write a paper for a science course.

 

Perhaps, but do you think this is what occurs in practice as opposed to principle?

This also could be an inefficient way to go about something, because proving, say, string theory would be a monumental step forward. So why not have a coalition of scientists attempting to prove the theory incrementally through proving hypothesis? I strongly suspect this is often how it's done. It seems like human nature to desire to prove that your point of view is correct even if scientific ideals are not upheld.

I'm not even sure if we disagree. Perhaps some more defining would be useful, but I think Oliver wants us to discuss it in a different thread. I would love to talk about it more, you seem to know your stuff
---------------

But what exactly is the argument that is being used against this school? Are they saying their methods are wrong, their curriculum is provably inaccurate? What's the line between shutting a school like this down and a religious school? Does an accrediting agency even get to make that call? I had not heard of this issue until today.

 

Thanks, MC. I just communicated with Chip and he supports our suggestion.

 

Isn't the Institute for Creation Research accredited by TRACS?

 

Bill's post earlier in this thread gives the history behind ICR & TRACS (which I was unaware of before reading his post). ICR isn't listed on the TRACS site:

Transnational Association Of Christian Colleges and Schools

And according to Archive.org it hasn't been since at least 2008:

Transnational Association Of Christian Colleges and Schools