From the Texas Citizens for Science:
In an email message to its friends, the Institute for Creation Research proposes The Disjunctive Duality of Science Distinction, a new argument to support its effort to obtain Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board approval for its masters degree program in science education. The argument is actually an old one. It posits that two types of science exist, "experimental" science and "forensic, historical, or orgins" science. Only the first is real science, while the second--which, needless to say, includes evolutionary biology--is not a reliable science. Texas Citizens for Science posts the ICR message and provides a brief refutation of the argument.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If creationists are going to be stupid, couldn't they at least be creative about it? Once again, they misunderstand the potential and limits of experimentation. By way of ScienceBlogling Greg Laden comes this summary by Texan Citizens for Science of the new creationistChristian perspective of…
I just got this brief from Robert Luhn of the NCSE
Representative Leo Berman (Republican, District 6, Smith County) has just introduced HB 2800, which would exempt "certain private nonprofit educational institutions" from the rules other degree-granting schools must follow in Texas.
The aim,…
So that's what the ICR is up to
If you've been wondering what's up with that attempt by the Institute for Creation Research to get accredited by the state of Texas, Texas Citizens for Science has dug up some suggestive information: the ICS is trying to trade up from their past worthless…
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has, some time ago, filed for approval to run a masters degree program in life science education. The purpose of the degree is to train educators to present biology in a way that is consistent with Christian Biblical beliefs, as opposed to actual…
This is in Texas. If the state of Texas were to acknowledge that forensic science is not reliable, they'd have to free all those prisoners waiting on death row, right?
My first assumption was that they include themselves in the second category, but wait, no, these people might have the rocks to argue themselves as part of the "experimental" mode. I speak from an historical reference.
Granted, there are few experiments done in macroevolutionary disciplines such as paleontology because of time-scale issues, but you would have to take an extremely narrow view of evolutionary biology to claim that it is not an experimental science.
Evolutionary genetics, evolutionary physiology, evolutionary ecology, virology, etc. are all experimental disciplines that encompass and contribute significantly to the field of evolutionary biology.