Tweet
Natural Rejection: Texas Judge Dismisses Creationism Degree Lawsuit
Yes, brothers and sisters, this happened in Godly Texas, renowned for upholding a right to free speech and praising the Lord Almighty! Unbelievable or what? You want your son to have a proper education – the state of Texas will deny that freedom to you!
In a decision that’s bound to further rile the advocates of creationism-as-science, Austin federal judge Sam Sparks has dismissed a suit filed by the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research. Its graduate school (ICRGS) had petitioned the court for the right to offer a master’s degree in science education from a biblical perspective. To use a distinctly non-evolutionary metaphor, in his rejection of the suit the judge tore the ICRGS a new one.
First, a little background: in 2008, the ICRGS applied to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for the right to offer master’s degrees in science education grounded in a literal interpretation of the biblical version of creation and the vigorous repudiation of evolutionary theory. The application was rejected due to the strong bias toward creationism; the ICRGS then sued, claiming that the board violated the institute’s first amendment rights of the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.
Part of Sparks’s opinion states, “Having addressed this primary issue, the Court will proceed to address each of ICRGS’s causes of action in turn, to the extent it is able to understand them. It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff 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.”
First, a little background: in 2008, the ICRGS applied to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for the right to offer master’s degrees in science education grounded in a literal interpretation of the biblical version of creation and the vigorous repudiation of evolutionary theory. The application was rejected due to the strong bias toward creationism; the ICRGS then sued, claiming that the board violated the institute’s first amendment rights of the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.
Part of Sparks’s opinion states, “Having addressed this primary issue, the Court will proceed to address each of ICRGS’s causes of action in turn, to the extent it is able to understand them. It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff 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.”
The judge’s opinion, for what it’s worth, is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33449642/J...dinating-Board
Extracts from the judgment:
First, the review panel reviewed all the information submitted by ICRGS, both in its application and after it had an opportunity to respond to the panel’s concerns. After reviewing the totality of the information, the panel uniformly recommended ICRGS be denied a certificate of authority to offer its proposed program as a Master of Science in Science Education degree. For instance, Dr. Patterson, one of the review panel members, stated he found “the course descriptions indicated a very narrow and over-simplified approach to understanding or teaching modern science.
He also concluded the overall curriculum of the program indicated a “strikingly deficient and incorrect understanding of modern science, its methods, procedures, ways of knowing, and generally-accepted conclusions.” He found many of the course descriptions reflected an intent to indoctrinate students in a particular religious-based mode of thought and set of conclusions, “rather than preparing them to instruct students in modern science.”
He discussed details of the proposed program and course work at length, and concluded the program “ignores established scientific evidence,” and “integrates selective scientific data that gives credence to [the framework of Biblical creationism], but ignores, or circumvents, a large body of scientific data that erodes and shatters the foundation of this framework.” He stated the courses listed for the program “are not comparable either in their design or emphasis with existing graduate courses...and the breadth of knowledge that characterizes the biological and geosciences was not reflected in the individual science courses conceptualized for this program.” Students do not cover any field of science with breadth at the graduate level.” For example, he noted the program includes courses with objectives such as “Interpret paleoclimate descriptions in accordance with a young-earth age model,” or “Evaluate flaws in the theory of biological evolution.”
He noted ICRGS requires faculty to be committed to “young earth creation science and the Bible,” the mission of ICRGS is to “study, teach and communicate the works of God’s creation,” and the ICRGS catalog sets forth among its basic principles that “the phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator.” He stated these beliefs “run counter to the conventions of science, which hold that claims of supernatural intervention are not testable and, therefore, outside the realm of science.” He found at least one of the texts which was to be used in the program set forth the principle that the earth is young, stating “this is not a working hypothesis to be tested as to whether it is true or false[, but] a basic conclusion drawn from the biblical record of creation as written by the only One who was present, God himself.”
So, that’s it. Don’t go to Texas for an education.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
Jesus!
Comment