Master's in Creationism

I thought this sounded interesting...

Apparently any research or scientific evidence that does not lead one to believe in the entire theory of evolution is not sufficient for study in American universities...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509719,00.html

 

Wow...

A "Master of Science" degree in Creationism... Wow, that's an oxymoron...

Thanks for the laugh!!!

 

I'm speechless lol...

 

*slap-forehead* you've GOT to be kidding me! *shakes-head* *grumbles*

 

I don't think that's correct.

The issue here isn't conducting creationist research. Little of that takes place anywhere, even at the Institute for Creation Research. (How can natural science study something that's supposed to be a supernatural miracle?) But nothing is stopping them from doing their research if they want to. They could probably find many fundamentalist churches willing to lavishly fund them too.

The issue here isn't awarding degrees in creationism either. As long as the Institute of Creation Research gives the degrees explicitly religious names and titles, it would be protected by state religious exemptions and by the free-exercise clause of the US Constitution. The state of Texas couldn't stop them. Remember that ICR operated for many (sometimes stormy) years in Southern California before it moved to Texas. This thing isn't new.

I believe that the issue here revolves around whether or not ICR can offer seemingly secular degrees in Science Education. It's about whether they can prepare graduates, trained in subtle Biblical apologetics, who are ostensibly qualified to teach science classes in Texas K-12 schools.

This is another battle in the culture-war between religious fundamentalism and modern secularism.

 

You are correct, sir. I don't have problems with people getting degrees in divinity or religious studies, or even creationism, as long the degree is not a science degree, due to the absence of actual science.

 

You kids ought to also think about the fact that it's not necessary to "believe" in a topic in order to study it. I could earn a grad degree in Mythological Studies from Pacifica without believing in Pangu.

http://pacifica.edu/mythology.aspx

 

I completely agree, but I think that the general feeling by everyone in this thread (with the exception of the OP) is that to offer a science degree in creationism is ridiculous... It just isn't science. The same applies to a degree in mythological studies, to use your example, which is why it is offered as a M.A. or a Ph.D. and not a science degree.

 

Lots of religious groups -- not just the creationists -- have strongly-held traditions or beliefs at odds with various aspects of mainstream science, medicine, or engineering. So the proposed legislation could open the door for other devout believers as well.

Other examples might include Christian Scientists and medicine, Mormons and New World anthropology, or the Amish and mechanical engineering. The traditions or beliefs of these groups may be worthy of academic study -- but they aren't science and should not be labelled as such.

 

I understand your point. Thanks.

 

I'm not sure that I caught this point.

 

The reference is to the Amish belief that traditional animal-powered vehicles have characteristics that make them preferable to cars or tractors -- a point that is not likely to be addressed in ABET-accredited engineering curricula. This belief creates significant concerns for drivers on public roads in some parts of the US.

 

OK. I guess I should get out more.

 

To suggest that there is NO science involved in the study of creationism is simply incorrect. One scientific aspect that comes to mind are the fossil records that those that support evolution use to support their theory. There are all kinds of holes in the fossil records that do not mesh with the theory of evolution. Also, the study of DNA and the unbelievably intrinsic nature of the human body IMHO is a testament to the incredible "design" the God has put forth in creating humanity and for that matter the entire universe. These are all areas of scientific study. My faith is not blind, it is founded in faith AND science.

The problem is that people have a distorted view of what science is. The definition of science is: knowledge attained through study or practice, or knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world. So, how could one say that there is no science in the study of creationism?

Here is a scientific fact: Something has NEVER come from nothing. never… That is a pretty simple scientific fact, but the theory of evolution and essentially the theory of the creation of the world that we know live in is based upon a notion that there was once nothing and then BANG... there was something. I find that to be hard to comprehend on a scientific level... and no one has ever been able to prove this phenomenon of something coming from nothing

 

I am not questioning that this school offers challenging and insightful curricula, but you cannot grant a science degree in a field that doesn't actually have any scientific merit. This is no different from granting a practitioner of homeopathy a M.D. degree. It just doesn't make sense.

I would not expect someone with a Ph.D. to teach a science class unless they actually held a science degree on par with the level of what they were teaching. I don't care if they "believe" in either creationism or evolution.

Just to put it out there, I am one who believes that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. What I am posting has nothing to do with whether or not I "believe" in creationism. This whole thread could be about a school granting a science degree for something other than creationism (such as psychiatry) and everything I have stated would still be valid.

 

Again, your assertion that this field has no scientific merit is simply wrong

I challenge you to read some of the science that is taught through the ICR. I do not represent the ICR, nor had I even heard of them before reading the foxnews article, but their teachings ARE based in science...

http://www.icr.org/science/

 

Here is a quote from Darwin from "Origin of Species"

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible

Keep in mind a couple of things. First, he is only talking about the human eye here. Second, when Darwin wrote Origin of Species in 1859 there was very little understanding about the incredibly complex systems that make up the human body. There was little understanding about cells and their intrinsic structure and makeup - let alone DNA. I wonder what Darwin would write today if he had the knowledge of modern science about the complexity of life. Would he still suggest that the process happened through natural selection?

The simple point of this is to say that even Darwin, who is the author of the theory, had serious doubts and roadblocks when forming his theory of evolution.

 

How familiar ar you with ICR's tenets of "scientific" creationism?

http://www.icr.org/article/tenets-creationism/

Appears. ICR is hoping to pressure Texas into placing religion teachers into science classrooms. In order for that ambition to succeed, the religion teachers have to at least superficially resemble science teachers. They need to have taken classes with the appropriate titles and so on.

 

Creationism is not science. It is a religious faith based belief. Which is fine with me but, that is not science. Sometimes Creationism can be dressed up to pretend to be science, e.g., Intelligent Design. In my view, ID is an idealogy that tries to dress Creationism up in a scientific facade but it's still not science.