TRACS Recognition by CHEA at Risk

The U.S. Department of Education recently informed TRACS that it was not in compliance with its criteria and gave the accreditor 12 months to come into compliance. Earlier this year, CHEA started considering whether it should continue to recognize TRACS. With CHEA, the possible issue is that TRACS and its schools promote creation science. Teaching creation science is not the issue; mixing creation science into science curriculum is the issue. Creationism should be taught as separate theology courses, and science courses should adhere to the current, generally-accepted standards that are based on the scientific method.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-compromise-on-creationism-11614901537

 

It appears that the U.S. Department of Education doesn't appear to be focusing on the creationism issue. Their decision to not immediately renew TRACS' recognition was based on the bad behaviors of their schools.

 

"Absent some principled compromise, a renewal of TRACS membership should be delayed or denied." This is absurd and demonstrates my earlier point (in another thread) of how the secularist educational aristocracy believes evangelicals can "compromise" their views on the plain reading of biblical passages. Moreover, this sort of thing belies the entire point of TRACS.

 

TRACS recognition has always been controversial, hasn't it?

 

Theology does not belong in science classes. Regardless, CHEA is not a government agency. They can do what they want.

 

That is unless one doesn't believe in the bifurcation of God and his creation. Ain't your call.

 

When you get sick, do you want a physician to use methods researched by scientists or to pray for a miracle?

 

You've presupposed that those actions are mutually exclusive-- they aren't. That was my point in my previous comment. Evangelicals generally do not believe in the moral or epistemological neutrality of a discipline like science. So again, should one assert creationism, that assertion cannot logically be divorced from the investigation of the creation and its processes. Further, given that the scientific method and its associated criteria arose from the Christian doctrines of uniformity, creation, et al., bifurcating science from the principles which gave rise to it is a non sequitur.

 

Well, whatever we here might think USDOE is the authority who will decide.

 

I think you mean the Church persecuted scientists and philosophers who didn't fall in line with their irrational and unfounded beliefs. One thing the article focused on was Young Earth Creationism, which goes against many years of scientific discoveries. Creation science inherently goes against the scientific method because it starts from the position that the Bible is correct, and we must prove that it's correct. So, evidence that contradicts the Bible is discarded.

 

I’m happy to tell you what I mean. And no, I don’t mean indefensible revisionism from an internet pundit. You neglected to address my points and are now ranting on the demerits of your weak description of creation science— a red herring indeed.

 

Not according to CHEA. If you click the link for TRACS, the Oct 4th, 2021 meeting renewed them for a period of 7 years with an interim report due in 2025. The WSJ article was from March or March.

https://www.chea.org/chea-recognition-decision-summaries

 

88 schools? For as much ink and electrons spent on TRACS, I would have thought their roster larger.