School teaching creation denied accreditation

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Chip, Jun 24, 2010.

Loading...
  1. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    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?
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  3. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    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.
     
  4. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator Staff Member

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 25, 2010
  5. JBjunior

    JBjunior Active Member

    No doubt.....
     
  6. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    (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.
     
  7. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    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.
     
  8. rickyjo

    rickyjo New Member

    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.
     
  9. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2010
  10. SurfDoctor

    SurfDoctor Moderator Staff Member

  11. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    Isn't the Institute for Creation Research accredited by TRACS? :confused:
     
  12. emmzee

    emmzee New Member

Share This Page