I have mixed feelings about this article in Inside Higher Ed on the issue of approving an ICR degree program in Texas. On the one hand, it's clear that the Texas bureaucracy is being cautious and thorough and working its way through their official protocols. Raymund Paredes, the commissioner of higher education, has raised concerns about the proposed program—online graduate degrees in he sciences are problematic because they lack the laboratory component; the proposed curriculum is not equivalent to other graduate programs in Texas; they haven't documented that the ICR is a research institution. He's said that because the subject is controversial, it's going to be examined "thoroughly and fairly."
OK, that's all good. Let's all calmly work through the proper channels.
On the other hand, though, it's freaking insane. The ICR is an organization that demands a loyalty oath for its employees:
The statement of faith for everyone at the institute requires support for both "scientific creationism" and "Biblical creationism." The former includes the belief that humans were created "in fully human form from the start" and that the universe was created "perfect" by the "creator." The latter includes the beliefs that the Bible is literally true and "free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological." Specifically, the statement requires belief in the literal creation of the earth in six days, that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and in the virgin birth of Jesus.
This is a sectarian theological program, a rinky-tink mob of cultists with no scientific credibility at all, demanding that a state recognize its work as equivalent to, say, that of the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Texas Austin. Alarmed? Every Texan ought to be furious at the idea that any yahoo with a Bible and a flaky idée fixe can set themselves up as logistically equivalent to a multi-million dollar research institution.
And these people are proposing to teach the state's teachers, who will then go on to teach the state's children.
The whole idea is subversive, lunatic, and destructive to the educational system as a whole, and the commissioner can simultaneously say that it is "controversial" and that he could still authorize the program? Insanity.
Texas is in the spotlight on this issue, but there's another state that needs to be examined: California. The ICR is moving from California, where they have been handing out degrees in creationist inanity for many years — where has the quality control been, California?
Maybe every state ought to reexamine its approval processes. It's hard to believe that we're actually seriously considering whether fundamentalist nonsense and distortions should be regarded as equivalent to modern science, and that these crackpots and their clown college proposal weren't laughed at and rejected out of hand.
- Log in to post comments
I hate to say it, but a huge portion of our country is absolutely off its rocker. I mean look at the fact that Huckabee is even being considered as a candidate should obviously point that out.
California has a reputation for live and let live, and Texas has a reputation for being an incredibly intolerant Christian state. The bigger, scarier implication is the way high school textbooks get published and how much influence Texas holds over those. (Since Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks nation wide [behind California ironically] and their review boards tend to dictate what the whole country reads)
You're right, it is absolutely insane... but asking a state to review it's policies, when it's a problem with the deep seeded beliefs of the constituency of that state, really won't yield any gross gains.
/Specifically, the statement requires belief in the literal creation of the earth in six days, that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and in the virgin birth of Jesus.
Every Texan ought to be furious at the idea that any yahoo with a Bible .../
PZ. You're talking about a state where the preponderance of people believe the first part of the quote above. Every day, I deal with university educated people who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, people who think that dogma and science are the same thing - that it's all how you BELIEVE. Most Texans are furious at any yahoo WITHOUT a bible who tries to discredit their belief.
Just because they have to memorize and parrot some bit of science for a High School or university exam doesn't mean they actually accept it.
(I really wanna move to a blue state)
What seems especially worrying to me is the way such programs are all-too-frequently defended on the basis of "diversity"--as if any idea, no matter how crackpot, has a right to representation in the classroom.
One might think that 150 years of creationism's trying to argue its case against natural selection (and failing miserably) ought to be enough to shake one's faith in that sort of extreme egalitarianism of ideas.
Love this comment.
Dear Creation Research:
I am currently looking for two on line course in my science major. One that explains how the sun can go backwards 10 degrees or remain standing for 24 hours (Creationist physics) and another on animal husbandry that will teach me how to get speckled sheep by putting up a pole stripped of some of its bark (Creationist biology). My degree depends upon this and the evil secular humanists laugh at me. For anthropology I am looking for a course that teaches the current effects of the curse of Ham.
Please help!
Diogenes, the last true believer!
That pretty well sums it up.
Re: JasonG
One might think that 150 years of creationism's trying to argue its case against natural selection (and failing miserably) ought to be enough to shake one's faith in that sort of extreme egalitarianism of ideas.
I suppose we can only hope that within another 150 years we just might have a chance at naturally selecting out the creationists...
But part of me is deeply afraid that we're getting ready to head into another dark age. Yet we'll see... I'll have to see how the next election goes... and after that I can always move to switzerland...
Sounds like the FSM needs to show his noodly appendage to some heathen Texan's
rAmen!
Ugh... I woke up in a bad mood because I was angry about a conversation with a Huckabee supporter yesterday. After some coffee and two anti-Christian death metal albums I was starting to cool off. Damn it, now I need to load a few more albums into my playlist and stop reading posts for a while.
What on earth do they mean by "scientific creationism"?
These are old-school YECs, yes? Now, I can see a YEC saying, "I believe in the whole 6-days bit because my faith tells me to do so, and I am simply going to ignore all evidence that my beliefs cannot be correct." That, at least, would have a certain internal consistency. (It would be little more than "bizarre idea" + "la la la I can't hear you"; but it would be consistent in its way.)
But doesn't YECism pretty much crumble into dust at the lightest touch of scientific method? If by "creationist" one means YEC, then one's creationism simply cannot be scientific. "Scientific creationism" would have to be ID creationism, which I gather the YECs hate at least as much as they hate proper science.
I don't mean to imply that ID is any more scientific than YEC. But ID does have a science fetish; it dresses up in a lab coat and desperately clutches a test tube, in hope that some of the scienciness will rub off. (Maybe "scientificoid creationism" would be the better term.) I mean simply that I do not see how YECs could even pretend (or want to pretend) that science had anything at all to do with their beliefs.
#5 - "I suppose we can only hope that within another 150 years we just might have a chance at naturally selecting out the creationists..."
Oh no, if some creationist sees that they are going to use that all over the place.
"Look, they want to use natural selection to get rid of Christians, EVILution is EVIL!! SEE now we have proof of their agenda!"
I can see it now... =\
But I have to agree with the rest of your post. The Dark Ages look closer everyday. It's a scary enough thought that Mike Huckabee could be considered as a viable/not of the freaking wall candidate, but seriously...this ICR crap. Down the hole we go.
A bit off topic but I am sure it will provide some discussion fodder: The eminent Ben Stein is interviewed at length in the current "Cybercast News Service". A few of my favorite quotes:
Maybe the should try moving to Washington state. Here is a nice college offering AA's / BA's and *shudders* MA programs in.... wait for it... Astrology. http://www.kepler.edu
I just don't get it anymore. When the hell did we time warp back to the 1500's and no one freaking tell me!!
California's been handing out ID degrees, and the nation looks down on Mississippi? What, couldn't they get it to fly here?
Feels like I'm in Bizarro World or something.
#10 - Rheinhard
Oh my, I don't even know where to start with him...
How does that follow from God created everything?
Maybe every state ought to reexamine its approval processes. It's hard to believe that we're actually seriously considering whether fundamentalist nonsense and distortions should be regarded as equivalent to modern science
Well, how did we ever get to the point where we have public schools with one set of standards, and religious schools with no standards whatsoever?
Why can people even have a Liberty or Regent University?
Because of money, and the fact that you can have a crappy education and still get a job (due to money).
So now they're encroaching on the sciences. Time for a line in the sand not only on science, but on everything they teach.
Ben Stein: But I think if you say we are going to study everything, and we are not going to let anyone close down our rights of inquiry, then I think we are getting somewhere. But also, there is this big issue about RNA and DNA, and whether RNA and DNA can respond to changes in the world around them. I think we say it can respond to changes in the world around them and that neo-Darwinians say it can only do that by random chance - it only happens by random chance. We say the cell may have the possibility of doing itself in an intelligent way that there may be some intelligence in the cell itself so that's probably a big difference between the two of us. We, on this side, think at least there's a possibility. We believe there's some possibility the cell could have an intelligence of its own.
Someone explain this to me... Please tell me he's not stating that natural pressures to cause mutations are possibly from ID.
#5:
http://hoom.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/nerd21.gif
Reinhard: re: #10
"Look, they want to use natural selection to get rid of Christians, EVILution is EVIL!! SEE now we have proof of their agenda!"
Now that is a good quotation.
The even scarier part is that they'd look at my post and think that there was actual truth in the way natural selection works. *sigh* I should make a point of only using things in a scientifically accurate context less I confuse those who already are misusing and misunderstanding fundamental scientific theory.
Mercurious: Re #16
I suspect what he's talking about is the way some bacteria can swap plasmids. I suspect he's trying to make a case that somehow the bacteria know that they need to improve themselves and attempt to do so. Kinda like perimecium and conjugation (although I'd be hard pressed to believe that a perimecium thinks in advance that it wants to conjugate...)
Yet I think you're right, I think he is trying to rationalize natural pressures has having origins in ID.
I don't get it. If they believe the Bible is unfailingly accurate, why do they feel the need to bring science into the picture?
They should be happy in their literal biblical world and stop bothering the legitimate disciplines.
CalGeorge wrote- "They should be happy in their literal biblical world and stop bothering the legitimate disciplines."
Since when has any conservative christofascist been content with "you believe what you want and I'll do the same"?
They want the world, and nothing less will do.
Having grown up in Texas, I feel the need to point out that our reputation for intolerance was mostly undeserved. Folks may have been bible-thumpers and rascists in some parts of the state -- which is of course horrible - but they were usually concentrated in smaller towns and mostly kept to themselves. Although I've been an atheist since 12, at most I had to deal with the occassional angry debate over god, creationism, etc. Biology was a boring year-long science class in high school that taught evolution, the role of mitochondrial DNA, etc etc and nobody even blinked twice.
That said, what's frightening is that these uber-religious groups have moved out of the small East Texas towns and are now trying to influence state-wide educational standards.
Suppose the bad guys win the opportunity to teach their crap in the schools (I know - scary thought, huh?) Has anyone ever seen a proposed lesson plan that the fundies want to use? It would seem to me that in order to teach their beliefs, they would have to have some sort of daily, step by step, orderly lesson plan. Surely, the first day's lesson would be so ridiculous that even the students would immediately see the lunacy.
Oh. Wow. Can it get any more stupid? These people have access to your childrens brains FFS!
I just worry that you guys sitting on the most powerful strip of land on the planet are losing control, and nobodies like the Huckabees will surreptitiously take over and, like, woaaahhh! We are all doomed.
I really don't know what to say, apart from where are the people of reason in Texas? This has got to be objected to, petitioned, protested in any form shape or fashion.
Since reading Dawkins and visiting this very blog, I have turned from the sort of polite
'well, as long as they are not hurting anybody with their belief let them get on with it' atheist to a
'WTF? How can I make people see reason in this' atheist. If that makes me a 'militant' then so be it. And it's things like this post that scare me.
So what can we do?
The ICR graduate degree is religious based, superstitious nonsense. An elaborate edifice built on 2 pages of 4,000 year old mythology that even the original authors probably thought was mythology at the time it was written.
If the ICR can grant graduate degrees in woo woo, not seeing why other pseudoscience fields can't do the same. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion in the USA.
Not seeing why Texas could grant graduate degrees in Astrology, Wiccan Magic, Homeopathy, Dowsing, Scientolgy, Kabala, Numerology, Fortune telling, ESP, and so on? What is the difference between wingnut Xian mythology and any other woo woo nonsense?
From #10
<begin rant>
My word, Ben is such an asshat. This is what irks me about jerks like Ben that point out science's uncertainty (a sign of intellectual integrity) to support their crazy-ass unsupported religious interpretation.
</end rant>
Personally, my favorite theory of abiogenesis is a banana peel tossed on the ground after a visit by an alien being.
I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is a fundamental disconnect in the way science is perceived by the general public versus those who have been exposed to it in a formal, systematic way. I don't think that the average person realizes there is any difference at all in the approach to reality a scientist versus, say, a biblical literalist takes. Both of them use methods inscrutable to the average person. Can the average person derive any more meaning from "בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ" (I hope that comes out, I've never pasted Hebrew into a web-form before. If it doesn't, it's the first line of Genesis) or
$$I(f) = \left(\frac{2hf^3}{c^2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{e^{\frac{hf}{kT}}-1}\right)$$ ? They're both incomprehensible jumbles of symbols -- I only know vaguely what they mean myself. The fact that the second makes a prediction that was beautifully verified is completely missed; in the first case you have a person in a pulpit saying "believe this", and in the other it's a person in a lab coat. The second has reasons to believe their "gibberish" beyond "I was told by a figure of authority" but at the level of the average person, both the priest and the scientist are authority figures without any good way to judge between them. Add in the fact that human nature tends to defer to authority, thus reducing the importance of verified predictions, and confusion results.
Anyway, my point is that from the point of view of non-scientists (which includes school board members), why not believe that there is a controversy about evolution? There is simply no good reason to believe person A over person B, particularly when person A is claiming "I speak for BOTH the Bible and science". Paradoxically, the only way to improve the situation is education -- education directed by the same non-specialists who don't deeply understand the specialists of either side.
But doesn't YECism pretty much crumble into dust at the lightest touch of scientific method? If by "creationist" one means YEC, then one's creationism simply cannot be scientific.
Sad to say, but there are people who claim with a straight face that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports a 6000-year-old Earth and that it's only a predisposition towards atheism that makes people believe otherwise.
I think Ben Stein needs a visit from Ross Geller. (Ok, maybe not the last part, but the rest.) Since he seems to like getting information from people who aren't scientists, maybe he'd listen to a tv character.
The even scarier part is that they'd look at my post and think that there was actual truth in the way natural selection works. *sigh* I should make a point of only using things in a scientifically accurate context less I confuse those who already are misusing and misunderstanding fundamental scientific theory.
Well of course they would, that fits their agenda of trying to make evolution and natural selection into something evil; Something that is a tool that humans use to wipe out undesirables. If they make evolution and natural selection = Social Darwinism and genocide it is quite a bit easier for them to get people on their side. They just don't get it.
raven: Re #25
I'm not sure I fully understand your point. Are you opening the doors to graduate degrees in (as you most colorfully put it) woo woo, or are you trying to put it down. There are several institutions already that grant degrees in I know at least Astrology (courtesy of #11) and Homeopathy. (Of which Homeopathy may actually have some scientific merit behind it, assuming anyone ever took the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. Acupuncture as an example
Yet I do agree with you that the moment we open up the doors (although as has been pointed out, it may be too late) to "superstious [pseudo-science] nonsense" we already find ourselves with the barbarians at the gates.
Perhaps you'll have to explain a bit more so I can fully grip what you were trying to say.
@ RM:
Speaking as a non-scientist, science IS hard to understand by the layman/woman. I consider myself quite well read and sufficiently educated, (for a drop out, Heh...) but I struggle with the flow of overly scientific principles, just on this blog. So it's natural for the lazy mind to take the easy way out, and attribute the mysteries of the universe to a deity.
I went through a fairly average childhood, was taught the xtian religion, and then when I was old enough, saw through the obvious and glaring contradictions by reading the athiest handbook, sorry the bible.
The thing about this situation, as PZ highlights, is the fact that because this is happening all too frequently, we will be complacent and ascribe it to 'temporary madness'.
Unfortunately this is the insidious tactic funda-mentals will use.
Stop the planet, then, I want to get off :(
Fellow Texan CJ,
To make e statement that those ID supporters just come from small towns is ludicrous. I live in the the DFW metroplex, which has a population of 5.5 million. I have clients with bachelors and masters degrees who aren't the mouth-foaming bible-banging zealots of Hickville, Texas but still support ID, and therefore ICR, because it allows then to rationalize and bridge their beliefs and their grudging acceptance of any science that may contradict it,
AS I stated before, most can parrot back answers for exams just to get a grade but never accept it as fact. ID alloys them to allay any sense of cognitive dissonance from science teaching versus supernatural indoctrination.
The funny thing is religions, if not religionists, understand how natural selection works. That's why they encourage having lots of children. I'd bet those YEC's all have way more children (if they are able) than most of the people posting here...
In 150 years, it's going to be a new dark age, all because the of contraceptives and the fact that the smart people use them and the dumb ones don't.
The funny thing is religions, if not religionists, understand how natural selection works. That's why they encourage having lots of children. I'd bet those YEC's all have way more children (if they are able) than most of the people posting here...
And we should constantly be reminding them of this.
And you can watch the documentary of that time..
If Texas accredits Xian mythology graduate degrees, then by US law they should also grant other woo woo pseudoscience degrees. To be consistent.
Such as Astrology, Homeopathy, Wiccan Magic, New Age whatever, Dowsing, ESP, Eckankar (soul flying I believe) and so on. This is based on the 1st amendment which prohibits religious preferences and discrimination.
Of course I think it is cosmically stupid. Free country, anyone is free to teach and grant degrees for any old nonsense. What is different here, Texas is recognizing this degrees from the ICR, an accreditation of some sort.
If the recognize Xian woo woo, they have to recognize all other woo woo. To be consistent and by US constitutional law. Simple as that.
California's been handing out ID degrees, and the nation looks down on Mississippi? What, couldn't they get it to fly here?
Feels like I'm in Bizarro World or something.
As a Left Coast resident, I need to speak up for California here. A number of years ago, the state of California attempted to bar the ICR from granting Master's degrees. The ICR sued in Federal Court and *won*. Later on, the ICR was granted a religious exemption from postsecondary school requirements.
Basically, California was *forced* to allow the ICR to grant degrees.
The cynical side of me is saying right now, "Texas -- please grant the ICR full accreditation". Given that Texas (in particular the University of Texas) has "poached" world-class scientific talent from California a number of times in the past, I wouldn't mind seeing Texas shoot itself in the foot over this issue. We'd really like to get our scientists back!
Look, I tried to tell everyone we were entering the "Mis-Information Age" not the Information Age, but nobody wanted to listen.
Now I'm gonna sit back and enjoy it. I've been ready for it.
Sounds like it's time for someone to spin up a doctorate program in cthonic studies and pastafarian creationism. If we're gonna teach nutbaggery we should make sure it's clearly labelled!
The ICR seems to be just a diploma mill anyway. The proposed degree can be earned online.
How hard is it to memorize a bunch of pseudoscientific Xian cultist nonsense and spout it back? It isn't like they do any real research or anything.
I bet a chimpanzee could do it.
The hardest part is probably writing the check out. No idea how much it costs but it is probably enough to be considered expensive. Compared to eating at McDonalds or something.
What on earth do they mean by "scientific creationism"?
You know... It's like "jumbo shrimp" and "military intellegence"...
Kristine (#15) wrote:
Why can people even have a Liberty or Regent University?
Because of money, and the fact that you can have a crappy education and still get a job (due to money).
No, it's the First Amendment. Everyone has a right to hold and express his/her own opinions, religious or otherwise, even opinions which are demonstrably false. That includes the right to form institutions such as LU and RU (both in my home state, ugh). That is a fundamental conflict of our society.
The unfortunate truth is that at least a plurality of people in our society believe in some degree of biblical literalism. Until this changes, those people's views are the mainstream. WE are the minority here.
Re #39.
Marcus Ranum: That is the best idea I've heard all day! From what I've seen that's just the thing the pastafarians do best (which reminds me I've got to get a chapter started at my local college). Since it seems that time and time again the religious nutbags realize just what happens when they open the doors to all sorts of "woo woo" (thanks again raven). That's the best tactic I've seen anyone think of in terms of combating all this nonsense.
Oops! Paragraph beginning "Because of money..." above is also a quote from Kristine.
I sat in a bar in Las Vegas about a year ago and got into a discussion with a guy about religion. Turns out he was very christian and when I said I was atheist we had about a 1 and half hour discussion over a bunch of beers.
He accused me of being a Communist, a Socialist, a moral degenerate, blah, blah, blah . . . I never once interrupted him on his tirades, and he was clearly agitated, constantly interrupting my points and yelling. I informed him that I never interrupted his points and I never raised my voice because I already know what he's going to say and how to answer it.
In total frustration, he said very loudly, "You probably believe it's moral to ass-rape a 3-year old!" and then he stormed out of the bar.
That man was a Texas Federal Judge . . .
I was pretty shocked and astounded . . .
That man was a Texas Federal Judge . . .
USA! USA! USA!
Raven (#25) wrote: Not seeing why Texas could grant graduate degrees in Astrology, Wiccan Magic, Homeopathy, Dowsing, Scientolgy, Kabala, Numerology, Fortune telling, ESP, and so on? What is the difference between wingnut Xian mythology and any other woo woo nonsense?
I think it's important to note that the ICR, not the State of Texas, would be granting these degrees. Texas would be accrediting the program, which is AFAIK only an approval of the form (number of courses, academic rigor such as it is), not the content.
And the difference, in the eyes of the law, is "none." See my #43 above.
In total frustration, he said very loudly, "You probably believe it's moral to ass-rape a 3-year old!" and then he stormed out of the bar.
Nope, I'm an atheist, not a priest.
Well someone devious might enroll and get the Bachelor of Woo degree, then use it to denounce cdesign propentsists. Just sayin'.
Well someone devious might enroll and get the Bachelor of Woo degree, then use it to denounce cdesign propentsists. Just sayin'.
Hmmm...NSA Grant....sociology of science and science education....hmmmm
In total frustration, he said very loudly, "You probably believe it's moral to ass-rape a 3-year old!" and then he stormed out of the bar.
That man was a Texas Federal Judge . . .
Well, we do have an image problem. We will never make progress unless we honestly acknowledge that and take action to correct that. The atheist blood donation drive coinciding with the National Day of Prayer is an excellent example, but we need many, many more events like this.
Also, "they" have an effective network of institutions; "we" not so much.
Re #43 (on second inspection)
I do have to admit there is a faintly scary concept at work here. While we may persecute the religious belief structure and its role in education... the concept of enforcing it is vaguely 1984 esque.
I'm not quite sure what to think of that, regardless of the fact that I think Christianity has no place in education (other than perhaps for historical significance). Yet it is something worth noodling over.
Anyone have a good way to wrap that up?
Just a month ago or so I read the tale of how the ICR tried to get California accredidation, and failed. Outside of making the ICR illegal, what else would you expect California to do?
Majeff @47, that was hilarious.
Just let Texas secede already. They can form their own christian state and wallow in their ignorance for all I care. Before they go, though, we here in Colorado would like to trade them Colorado Springs for Austin.
Let's hope they look up K-selection someday.
Ohhhh I think I may of come up with a way to reallllly hurt them. I have serious doubts thats its even vaguely legal and would most likely shoot ourselves but it'd sound good. These schools are not accredited and teach "unsound science". Because they are not public they (I hope) receive no public funds. Do they receive any tax breaks? Not sure, anyone know?
Could we slap a "reason tax" on them? If your going to teach something that has zero basis in reality then you are free to do so, but your also going to have to pay for us counter you.
Believe it because most have never read enough of it to know better.
Re: #56
Didn't Texas already secede once in their history... and as I seem to remember... we annexed them! Oy vey, if only we could go back...
I'm glad to see this is getting more scrutiny but having two teenagers in Texas schools and concerned that the ICR would be allowed to pop out degrees in education to people who could end up in my kid's classrooms I wrote the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board a few weeks back and expressed my concerns:
I just read, with considerable alarm, about the request by the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas to teach a masters level degree in science education. I have visited their web site and it is evident they have no intent of teaching real science, specifically evolution, in the classroom. Despite the protests of the intelligent design/creationist supporters, they do not apply scientific principles to reach conclusions based on verifiable evidence. Now this group seeks approval so that graduates of this institution could become public school teachers within Texas. As the father of two high school students I am very concerned that if this oranization is approved that my kids could end up with a teacher who masquerades religious belief as science in the classroom. Creationists say they only wish to "teach both sides." This is a false dichotomy; their only desire is to take pot-shots at evolution which is strongly supported by solid scientific evidence while simultaneously claiming unsubstantiated creationism as the only other alternative. I hope the board can truly see that approval of The Creationist Worldview certification program opens the door of science education in Texas to any and all beliefs being taught as science. I strongly urge the board not to approve the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas for any recognition that would permit graduates of their course to teach creationism in our school's science classrooms. Thank you for your time.
Here is their response:
Thank you for your comments to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. We are all stakeholders in ensuring the highest standards of excellence for our students and higher education professionals throughout the state, and as such, applaud you for your involvement in this process. We welcome your feedback at any time.
Sincerely, De Juana Lozada Asst. Communications Director Office of External Relations Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
While they welcome my feedback, I think feedback is all I got in response.
Thank you for your comments to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. We are all stakeholders in ensuring the highest standards of excellence for our students and higher education professionals throughout the state, and as such, applaud you for your involvement in this process. We welcome your feedback at any time.
BINGO!
WTF does the virgin birth of Jesus have to do with creation research? Does creation science predict that we won't find fossilised deity semen?
"The atheist blood donation drive coinciding with the National Day of Prayer is an excellent example, but we need many, many more events like this."
Would it work in our favor or against our favor to hold a National Day of Actually Doing Something?
Rey (#64): Yes, a national Atheist Community Service Day would be awesome. I'm not sure whether it would be more effective to hold this the same day as NDoP, which means we have to share publicity with an established franchise, or to pick our own day.
Perhaps some brave atheist should apply to the ICR program and then, when his or her application is rejected, sue their pants off.
We need to find someone with impeccable academic credentials -- degrees in both biology and theology, who's an atheist, a rational materialist, and a bible scholar. If I'm not mistaken, there's some folks with that kind of background hanging out around here from time to time.
BM: I was mostly referring to my proposed name; would it be too snarky? Certainly the idea itself would be all good.
The loyalty oath is for their employees.
I don't think they have one for the customers. This is a money making diploma mill. Most likely, they are far more interested in whether the check clears or not.
They are really just selling a diploma. One can find bucketsful of creo nonsense all over the web for free. After all, it is all based on 2 pages of 4,000 year old mythology that hasn't changed since then.
Sure, one which will continue as long as ignorant lying pricks like BEN STEIN get on camera and propagate the same old tired nonsense that "Darwinism" = atheism = moral irresponsibility and laxity.
Get some new material, Ben. Your slander against atheists does not make a very convincing argument against an established scientific theory.
Rey:
I got the joke, which was indeed funny, but feel the name would be too snarky. The concept of tangible, measurable results would be a good marketing tool, though.
Cheers,
BM
Sure, [Atheists' image problem] will continue as long as ignorant lying pricks like BEN STEIN get on camera and propagate the same old tired nonsense...
Not holding my breath waiting for this to happen. Rather than waiting for our opponents to stop demonizing us, I think we need to generate positive publicity for ourselves. Actions speaking louder than words, and all.
/Just let Texas secede already. They can form their own christian state and wallow in their ignorance for all I care./
That would be "WALLER" not "wallow" (yer obviously not from 'round here...)
Yeah, but y'all'll still have backwood anti-intellectual evangelical and/or rascist havens such as Kansas and Florida, not to mention, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, the VIrginias and the Carolinas.
After Huckabee's win you can add Iowa to that list.
And yet we do have some great people here who redeem my faith in Texas and the South somewhat. But Iowa...
The ICR is moving from California, where they have been handing out degrees in creationist inanity for many years -- where has the quality control been, California?
Perhaps California, which hosts the NCSE and has a Science Framework crafted in part by Kevin Padian, and among the eight states to have received an 'A' from the Fordham Foundation for teaching of evolution, has simply worn the ICR down. As YEC, they've definitely had their thunder stolen by Ken Ham's group and their 'big tent alliance' with the ID crowd is more tenuous than ever. So I think they're moving to Texas in hopes that they'll look like a bigger fish in that pond.
They have a saying in Texas (yes I've lived there) " I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as quick as I could". I wasn't born there either and I left as quick as I could. I had a guy that worked for me that referred to black people as "nappy headed blue gums" (what an asshole) and another one that was waiting on the resurgence of the confederacy. With that kind of mentality it doesn't surprise me at all that they would consider a masters degree in Wooism.
Amen #69 My take on it.....
Religion=Christianity=Creationsim=laxitives...I've got to go wipe now.
But Iowa...
I have relatives there, Dutch Reformed types. Was born there myself. Don't be surprised. Don't be surprised in the least. My uncle was challenging me to reject my science lessons on evolution in elementary school. There's a lot of fuckwittery in Iowa.
I think we should sell Texas back to the Mexicans. Also, take the Louisiana purchase and send it back to the French and get a refund. Take that money and buy a controlling interest in Canada stock and do a reverse merger where the target takes over the acquiring Company.
Boom! Canada becomes a major power and we get rid of much of the worst of America... ;)
@#76
Yeah but wouldn't Canada end up with the 10 Trillion dollars in debt?
"I think we should sell Texas back to the Mexicans. Also, take the Louisiana purchase and send it back to the French and get a refund. Take that money and buy a controlling interest in Canada stock and do a reverse merger where the target takes over the acquiring Company.
Boom! Canada becomes a major power and we get rid of much of the worst of America... ;)"
Hmm-- I think many post-apocalyptic stories do sorta break up the poor ol' USA that way. And maybe we folk of the Old Northwest Territory would be better off reunited with our old Canadian roots.
Bureaucratus Minimis:
An "Atheist Community Service Day" would probably do little good, since many of the most bigoted anti-atheist religionists (both conservative and liberal) happily concede that atheists can do good and moral things. As they see it, the problem is that atheists can only be moral because they are consciously or unconsciously stealing values from religion. An atheist who was consistent with their world-view would have to see that there can be no values in a universe which isn't positively structured in a source of Goodness.
All the charity work in the world will not change minds on this. That's one reason I think direct attacks on this sloppy reasoning through philosophy, ethics, and debate is probably critical. Until atheism is seen as a reasonable position which can be held by thoughtful people, it will be pushed aside by folks looking for easy answers.
Ironically, creationism and other woo-woo pseudosciences get their momentum from the fact that most people see the value of hard answers. Science has prestige. So does religion. To a normal thinking person, it makes no sense that there are two different paths to truth, two different ways of seeing the world, and two different kinds of true understandings -- faith and science. There's only one reality. So many religionists are desperate to see them work together. Thus, pseudoscience.
The religionists who are comfortable with religion resting only on faith end up praising the wonderful, love-enhancing, character-building strength of religious faith for its own sake. Which ends up demonizing atheism just the same.
Sastra,
Great rebuttal. I don't agree with everything you've said, but you certainly gave me much to think about. Thanks.
You wrote [a]n "Atheist Community Service Day" would probably do little good...
Perhaps, but I think it's worth trying, and the good deeds would be their own reward. Our harshest critics may concede that atheists can do good, but rarely do we publicly demonstrate that we actually do. My hope is that there is a significant portion of the population whose views on us can be changed by our conspicuous actions. It's easy for our opponents to cast us as unhuman; anything that forces them to see us as more like them helps.
Agree that the "direct attack" you mention is also important. I think we need to prosecute the war (as it were) on many fronts.
Many of us are frustrated and angry. We need a space like this where we can vent our anger, but at some point the anger, snark and pranks consume energy that could be better used for more productive strategies like good works, or the direct engagement you mention.
Slightly OT, but my take is that people turn to Woo because they want to understand science, but can't hack the math or whatever. Woo offers the seductive appearance of understanding without the substance.
Regards,
BM
Bureaucratus Minimis:
Agree with you on the "many fronts" approach. Different strategies work for different situations. There are certainly going to be people whose views of atheism will change if they see atheists helping out at a soup kitchen or building shelters for the homeless. I guess the biggest problem with doing this as an Official Atheist Program is that it will seem that, like them, we're trying to convince them to become atheists because "we're so nice and caring."
Also agree with you on woo offering the trappings of rigor without any of the actual bother of it. Most of my friends are into vaguely New Age forms of pseudoscience, and they honestly think that studies are studies. Scientists who reject something like Dr. Emoto's experiments with messages from water can't possibly do so because the protocol was poor: it must be because they don't like the results.
Hmm, I'm new to Pharyngula, and one of the first posts I come across is about my poor home state...
So having glanced through some of the comments, it seemed like TX was getting a bad rap... well here's some food for thought:
Having been through Texas public education, just let me say that it probably won't make much difference where the teachers get their degree from. As far as I remember, my HS biology teacher got her degree from a reputable source... and still my entire high school education on evolution consisted of--I kid you not--a single worksheet on Darwin. It mapped his route to the Galapagos islands, which of course, has absolutely nothing to do with evolution in the first place.
That was it. I'm pretty sure that my teacher didn't even dare say the word 'evolution' above a hushed kind of whisper, and even then it was followed by hasty assurances that everyone was free to believe what ever they want. You know, the same old 'it's just a theory' trash.
I had to go to college and have a real professor before I learned--well, anything about evolution, much less how... you know, wonderful and true it is.
So really, it doesn't matter what's in the cirriculum. Evolution doesn't get taught anyway. I didn't actually learn enough in high school to even know that there was something I wasn't being taught... and I was one of the top of my class, and I didn't go to boonies high school either.
So yeah, obviously in principle this ICR degree is bullshit. In practice, I'm not sure how much difference it will make...
Oh, and Texas does have a few redeeming factors: um, I can't actually think of them, but there are... how about Austin?
Heh, your acronym confuses the search feature. It's the same as the official acronym for the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research.
Well, when I was in public school (in Texas) the only times evolution was mention was when I brought it up
Texas and Florida are putting us back to the Dark Ages,
D"Souza and Huckabee are ranting insane idiots, and that
Insane Fundie site with those incredible deranged comments
that make no pretense to what they think and would like to do to us, should make it blatantly apparent that we also
should not be "civil' to their insane rantings. And yet,
when I comment that "they should ask their god" in all of
their earthly matters, a certain few have the gall to
proclaim me uncivilized in several choice remarks. Are you
people real, or just maintaining an ongoing blog to
perpetuate your biased opinions irrespective of claiming
to be atheists? It would take me too long to answer in a
fitting manner to your rantings that are obviously not
shared by many with more sound minds. Your comments are
not even snarky; they are pathetic and really bespeak
your phony personalty. A meaningful dialogue on a subject
we are supposed to share has degraded into a character
exposition that detracts from the purpose of stemming the
deranged religious rabble. Civil, my foot! I'll continue
to lambast the morons in any manner I can muster without
recourse to politeness.
Gee, am I going to have my Evil Atheist card revoked just because I don't believe in antagonizing someone asking for directions?
You must be a real hit at parties, holbach.
"Fellow Texan CJ,
To make e statement that those ID supporters just come from small towns is ludicrous. I live in the the DFW metroplex, which has a population of 5.5 million. I have clients with bachelors and masters degrees who aren't the mouth-foaming bible-banging zealots of Hickville, Texas but still support ID, and therefore ICR...."
I'm afraid I've once again failed to make my point clearly. First, I said "most" of the bible thumpers, indicating there are certainly pockets of other feverently religous folks in the state; second, if you look at a map, all y'all from Austin, Waco, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, etc ARE East Texas (and not trully "central texas" as claimed). Third, the mouth-foamers are the ones I addressed specifically b/c they are the ones who generally PUSH for this kind of stuff, although as you noted, other relgious types may "support" it.
However, I think we can all agree that trying to teach one person's religion to other people's children in a classroom is bullshit.
Glad to hear from another Texan, and still glad to be from there...CJ
holbach: "I'll continue to lambast the morons in any manner I can muster without recourse to politeness." And thus prove Ben Stein's point. When somebody hits me with a "God bless you", I give back a "live long and prosper", without the Spockian hand signal. If they care to ask, I'll explain that the expressions are equivalent, mine just doesn't call on supernatural entities.
The voice of reason may yet prevail in Texas. This from NCSE: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/TX/369_decision_on_icr39s_gr….
...i'm not sure ICR could get certified to give degrees in theology. that sort of viewpoint on the bible is to academic bible studies what flat-earth-ism is to astronomy: laughing stock.
although i will be highly amused if it is formally found that the "institute for creation research" is not a research institution, and they'll have to change their name. you know, again.
A little more on the situation, this from the Texas Observer
The (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board)spokesperson, De J. Lozada, says concerns were raised after THECB consulted with a wide variety of individuals, and include questions about how students might expect to gain exposure to scientific experimentation in an online-only environment. Paredes has also asked for documentation of current ICR research projects and either a revision of the ICR curriculum or, alternately, an explanation as to why the current curriculum departs from the norm for a master of science degree program in Texas.
Complying may prove a tall order, considering that ICR teaches the universe was created in six days by God, who also cooked up humankind from scratch in the form of Adam and Eve. In an e-mail sent to THECB, Dr. Eddy Miller, dean of ICR's graduate school, wrote, "It has become obvious to us that in order to do justice to the concerns you raised, we would need more time than is available to us if our Application is to be considered at the January meeting of the THECB. Thus we would like for you to delay consideration of our Application until the April meeting."
Oh yeah, ICR. Put on those tap dancing shoes and get to work!
There's a post(stuck in moderation) that gives an overview of the current ICR situation in Texas that precedes #91.
Its gist is that the ICR has asked for a "postponement" of the full Coordinating Board's vote, which was to have been next week, to April.
PZ, you don't understand. THECB is being extremely careful and methodical in their evaluation because they don't want to get successfully sued by the ICR later when they turn them down. When you're a government agency, everyone sues you all the time. In cases like this, you have to dot EVERY bureaucratic I and cross every T to make sure that your case is bulletproof. They can't afford to make a mistake that the ICR can use to appeal their decision.
Keep your noodly appendages crossed!
Remember, that's EXACTLY what happened in California . . . ICR was turned down for accreditation, they sued, and they won. All the more reason to step cautiously.
Maybe the 'eminent' Ben Stein ought to worry about his own moral transgressions, bearing false witness as a shill for the recent pro-creationist documentary (wouldn't this almost by definition be a mock-umentary?), lying to Dawkins among other scientists about the nature of the film. The film is called Expelled, and here's the link to the story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2178958,00.html
Gee, lying, that's up there in the Top Ten list of commandments. I'd be worried, Ben, if I were a scumbag like you and believed what you believe!
(Ever wonder why all these people spend so much energy fighting gays and gay rights, and it's not in the top ten at all? I mean, even if it does mention homosexuality in a negative way a couple of times (and that's a big if), it doesn't get much attention relative to the other fucking moronic thngs the bible is against!
There is one silver lining -- true, the ICR people are flaming whacko cultists with an Iron age world view, but after a few rounds with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board on even the most non-controversial issues (e.g. the type font used to fill out one of the forms) they will be suicidal and we won't have to worry about them anymore.
Trust me on this one, I know. Believe me, I know.