Creationists fail in bid to offer ‘science’ degrees
| April 30, 2008 | Posted by Mario A. Lopez under Creationism |
From Nature:
A religious group has had its application to offer Master of Science degrees rejected by Texas authorities. The Institute for Creation Research— which backs a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the creation of Earth in six days — was seeking a certificate to grant online degrees in science education in Texas (see Nature 451, 1030; 2008). But the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board voted unanimously last week not to grant the institute’s request, following the recommendation of Raymund Paredes, the state’s commissioner of higher education. “Religious belief is not science,” Paredes said in his recommendation. “Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.” The institute has 45 days to appeal or 180 days to reapply.
Religious belief is not science? Does Paredes feel that “religious” people can’t teach adequate science? He’s right, “religious belief is not science,” but should creationists be barred from teaching/offering degrees because of their beliefs? EXPELLED!
108 Responses to Creationists fail in bid to offer ‘science’ degrees
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
thogan
As e.m. radiation travels, it is modified by whatever medium it passes through. The more it travels, the more modification it undergoes, cet. par. We never see the original light from the source exactly as it left the source.
How does a photon change when passing through a vacuum? Get this one right or it’s out the door with you. I’m growing weary of your weird science.
Based on earth-local measurements, e.m. radiation can change direction when gravity applies sufficiently (e.g., the sun’s).
Astronomers think that light “ages” and undergoes a red-shift with time.
There are still some anomalies that lead us to believe that light has characteristics of a wave, so your choice of “photon” to describe e.m. radiation is curious.
What’s the rate of deposition of moon dust? What’s the density of dust in extrasolar space which has actually been collected and tared? What is the tared mass of the sun and its *observed* internal composition? There’s so much of what you know that may not be so.
Kind of funny that a software engineer is testing my physics.
I’m looking for someone who is able and willing to discuss the philosophical difficulties with “historical sciences”, but I don’t think that I’ll find it here. I’ve got more profitable things to do to test my ideas. Thanks for the suggestion to leave.
Ciao everybody.
thogan
Thanks for dropping by and thanks even more for leaving.
Light “aging” by redshift is something that few astronomers put any stock into. It’s nothing more than a YEC invention. Astronomers know that red shift (and blue shift) occurs by Doppler effect (proven by experiment) and by the expansion of space itself (theoretical/red shift only/Hubble Constant).
Kind of funny that a software engineer is testing my physics.
Not half as funny as you calling the YEC nonsense you’ve been spouting “physics”. And yet another mistake of yours is calling me a software engineer. My initial training in electronics (military) was in radio theory over 30 years ago. Most of my career has been in circuit design, not software design, although I’ve done a lot of both.
Jonathan,
I will try to temper my comments about my fellow brethren at the ICR. I fear I am setting a bad example….
However, I am not the only YEC who has been a bit disgruntled. Bill has been far more charitable to the ICR than I, but it appears the ICR has something of a coolness toward ID. I pointed out in The ICR’s continued misunderstandings about science:
in contrast John Morris wrote:
ID in the most formal sense has been argued as the 4th law of thermodynamics (No Free Lunch by Bill Dembski). As it is inappropriate to label the 2nd law of thermodynamics as “Christian” or “non-Christian”, so I think it is inappropriate to label ID as “Christian” or “non-Christian”.
The YEC model as a strictly scientic theory (meaning a theory of physics that argues the universe is young) will probably put the design inference for biology beyond reasonable doubt if the major holes can be plugged.
I’m skeptical of Humphreys and Hartnet’s work, but I’m delighted to see the attempts they are making. They appear to be fine physicists, and I’m glad to see Hartnett’s work passing peer review in the secular journals.
I do however object to Harnett’s misrepresentation of Setterfield’s work.
There are creationists in Northern Virginia who are also physicists. One was former associate chair at the Naval Academy another from William and Mary and others from universities I’d rather not identify. We are hoping to organize a creationist organization along the lines of the Discovery Institute where theological purity is not demanded….
I wish to explore YEC as a purely physical and scientific hypothesis. It is my understanding that the Temple of God in the Old Testament was built by a mix of believers and unbelievers. I don’t think there is anything wrong in enlisting the help of non-believers to gather data and build mathematically sound theories. I certainly think there is nothing wrong inviting OECs or undecided creationists to offer legitimate scientific criticism’s of YEC theory.
I have reservations about Russ Humphreys physics, but I’d gladly be wrong, because if Humphreys is right, the Universe can be shown scientifically to be young. [In such case I suppose Dr. Cheesman and I will owe Russ a beer....]
My colleagues in Northern Viriginia are still working on building out the infrastructure of the new creationist organization. I hope to keep the readers at UD posted….
I am grateful you have posted here at UD, Jonathan. I have to admit I found it difficult to be friendly given some of the things I have seen you write and the labeling of some of my friends as compromisers. I believe a compromiser is someone who knows the truth but chooses to compromise it. That is different from someone who has made a mistake, but an honest one. If YEC is true, I put OECs in the latter category of “honest mistake”, not compromiser.
I hope the Movie Expelled has shown that many non-YEC Christians do not have the character flaw associated with a “compromiser”. Caroline Crocker was an old-Earth Darwinist. She was a Theistic Evolutionist. Her husband is a rector at a very conservative Anglican church….
She has approached me to ask why I think YEC is viable. She is willing to learn. 7 years ago she rejected Darwinism in favor of ID. She doesn’t enage in questions of creation or age of the Earth. She does not feel qualified to discuss those areas, but she is willing to learn. I don’t think it is productive to label such people as compromisers…they are people willing to learn and change their minds….
That said, I will pray that God blesses your scientific work and your CMI ministry. I consider you a brother, and not the enemy. I will also pray for the ICR. I hope you find it in your heart to offer prayers for the new creationist organization that is forming in Northern Virginia.
At # 94
Haha Salvador. You should be a lawyer, you are very careful not to offend anyone.
I remember talking to Marcus Ross last year at Baraminology 2007. I asked if he agreed with my assessment that YEC “science” was really bad 20 or 30 years ago. He agreed. I was tempted to use the word “farce” (to quote Polkinhorne)….
Ross pointed out the now discredited flood model by Henry Morris. Morris’s model didn’t fail on “Biblical” grounds. It failed because of scientific facts.
The next generation of YECs seem to have better science. Walt Brown (PhD MIT) and Russell Humphreys (PhD and scientist at Sandia Labs) and John Hartnett (many peer reviewed papers), John Baumgardner (published in Nature), etc…
I am hopeful for seeing some issues settled. It is good to see less theology and more real science.
The real science questions are deep and won’t be settled quickly or by theological debate. To get a taste of what must be examined, consider even a basic question about Russell Humphreys book Starlight and Time.
In Humphreys book, page 90, Humphreys refers to things like the Ricci tensor and the D’Alambertian operator with respect to Einstein’s relativity. But if Maxwell’s equations are slightly inaccurate such that there has been variation over time in the major “constants” of physics, then Humphreys hypothesis is out the window. I pointed out the problem that the D’Alambertian operator will face in a time-varying speed of light universe here: Lorentz Covariance and the Creationist Maxwell’s Equations.
Further, there is what is called Ritzian electrodynamics [a claim that Maxwell's equations are wrong]. This leads to different forms of relativity. There has been a small interest in other kinds of relativity like Galilean and Vectorial and Ritzian and Lorentzian, not just Einsteinian (what Humphreys uses).
But who is to say what is right? There is still too much serious research that needs to be done. Discussing more theology appears not to be the path to settle the most questions of YEC, namely, the creationist Maxwell’s equations.
In the mean time a lot of basic Astrometry needs to be done. I’m not so sure we really know how far away things are in the universe or how big it is. For example, I point out here, the quasars could be only a few parsecs away from the sun. Van Flandern and Arp are also skeptical of the published distances of quasars. We could say the same of every thing else, and the early news from our improved astrometry devices is casting doubt on our previous assumptions. See Possible Distance Measurement Flaws.
We simply don’t know. With respect to these basic empirical and theoretical questions, we need more basic research and less theology.
Scordova, my list of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use might not have pleased some who cut their teeth on the ICR arguments of 30 years ago. But I am not a follower of those who delight in trashing YECs but contribute precious little themselves, like Kurt Wise.
Again, a problem with ICR was that its staff like Aardsma had too much freedom, and were defended for a time even when they went way off beam.
Johnathan,
Just to be sure, are you saying Kurt was trashing YECs? I’m too new on the scene to know all the prior history. Some of my accounts (like that of Aardsma) are second hand [possibly third hand]….
Perhaps I misunderstood what you said about Kurt. If I did not misunderstand, then it confirms my perception that Kurt Wise and the YEC Baraminology Study Group (which included Richard Sternberg, Paul Nelson, and Stephen Meyer) have been at some variance with other YEC organizations like ICR or AiG or CMI.
I appreciate your analysis of the ICR during the Aardsma era. I was not aware other creationists like you had concerns about the ICR during the Aardsma era.
I think Russ Humphreys has been a very excellent influence on the ICR. I don’t delve much in the activities of the ICR except when I see them say something critical of ID or my area of research interest.
Regarding the problems that Aardsma caused for the ICR in having too much freedom, is the structure of peer-review in organizations like Creation Research Quarterly or TJ a better way to do business? [I don't have an active subscription to these journals so my assessment of the could be a little sketchy].
I’m of the opion collaborative research from many independent sources might be a very good route for basic research.
I’m not as versant in the history of existing YEC organizations as I am with ID organizations. If I mis-stated something pertaining to the history of these organizations, please correct me….
regards,
Salvador
Hi Salvador and Jonathan.
I was wondering if I could ask you a couple questions about a possible young cosmos.
1. What are you views on the Great Flood?
2. How did Kangeroos get to Australia? Are there precursors to Kangeroos/Wallabies?
3. What are your views on Baraminology?
Thanks guys,
~ P.O.
DaveScot @ 93
I don’t like to leave my mistakes uncorrected. I didn’t realize that light aging was a YEC speculation-sorry for confusing it with the far more plentiful OE speculations.
Also sorry for calling you a software engineer.
Salvador
I think Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner have both been good influences on ICR.
CMI has a clear statement of faith as well as semi-official position statements on a variety of topics. Where we are undecided collectively, we say so. Conversely, ICR defended Aardsma even as he was making excuses not to believe the biblical timescale. I think they have learned from this mistake.
TJ (now Journal of Creation) and even Creation magazine are peer reviewed.
I’ve long asked, what exactly has Kurt Wise contributed to the creation movement. He is certainly on record trashing Creation magazine, whinging about its “evolution bashing” (evidently the passages where Elijah mocked Baal’s prophets (even including toilet humour) are missing from his Bible, as well as 2 Cor. 10:4–5).
I use the term “compromiser” deliberately, because they are very clear that they are, in effect, compromising the Bible’s authority by treating uniformitarian geology and astronomy as authoritative instead.
To be fair to Thogan, an effect like gravitational lensing, the bending of light by intervening galaxies, may be what he is positing. Such things could dramatically affect the interpretation of distant objects. What if other phenomenon are introducing systematic errors? I don’t think Arp is a theist (is he?) and even he doesn’t accept standard interpretations of the data, so I don’t see the need to label such ideas as “YEC-only”.
I’m personally open to the possibility that the universe may be relatively “younger” than currently calculated. That said, I don’t hold to YEC nor Ross’s OEC. But let’s assume the YECs are right in that there are some fundamental errors being made. What if the problem is that YECs are trying to force-fit the data into the 6k-10k model? What if reality is a “middle earth” position of a couple billion? Even a smaller reduction like that would be devastating to Darwinism.
Patrick
I don’t see how that would be devastating to Darwinism. They only have 500 million years to work with in any case. Virtually all the modern phyla appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion 500mya and there are few if any predecessors to be found in the Ediacaran era preceding the Cambrian.
I wouldn’t be too surprised if the generally accepted age of the earth and the universe is off by a factor 10 in either direction. But going from 4.5by for the earth to 450my is still SO much older than 6000y there’s really not much difference in that first order of magnitude error.
At 102
Hi, Patrick. What you are refering to is a MEC perspective?
Scordova refered to (I may be mistaken) Dr. Cheesman’s work when he mentioned that YEC could very well be wrong. Yet a Middle Ages, that is between 6,000 years and 13.7 Billions (Standard Age of the Universe) could be a very real possibility.
I think it would be awesome if you guys proved it was a young or younger universe than what the standard dating proposes.
The ICR has some excellent scientists and researchers who have advanced degrees from the same universities as secular scientists. I also understand that some of their scientists submitt papers to secular scientific journals. So the question arises; are the theories and/or views of the ICR any more sensational or irrational than current Neo-Darwinian views and theories of infinite parallel universes, 27 dimensions, dark matter, life from nothing etc, etc. I mean has anyone ever seen this stuff?. (I read the book:The Devil’s Delusion)
One large difference between the ICR and the NAS is that the NAS uses science and atheism to reject God while the ICR openly embraces Him (biblically based Christians appreciate this). The folks at ICR have my deepest respect. They stand up for what they consider correct science. Keep up the outstanding work. The best thing I can do is pray for the ICR..
I don’t think it’s helpful to act as though the interpretation of Genesis is a slam dunk, that before materialistic science got under way there was never any controversy. More has been written over the ages on the hexaemeron than on any other part of the Bible. Why insist that Scripture stands or falls on our infallible interpretations—especially when they are controversial? What is needed is an open discussion free of acrimony and accusations of heresy.
It’s true that polite scholarship has genuflected to Darwin for well over a hundred years. Modernism stood on two legs: Genesis was wrong and Darwin was right. But now that the Emperor’s nakedness is coming into focus one hopes that more scholars will begin take the book seriously. Both books—the book of Scripture and the book of Nature—should be taken seriously.
For those who think Genesis is easy I say read it. Note that in any plain reading you will see that land and sea were already there before the six days began. Those who would have the entire Universe be what was created in the six days still have to finagle with Genesis 1 verse 2.
Rude, I agree with much of that. For my own part, I’m less dogmatic about the age of the universe or the earth as I am with a literal garden, and a literal Adam and Eve. I am a literal Six Day creationist, and far less certain about the age of the earth and the universe. The first few verses of Genesis 1 are certainly enigmatic, and suggest the possibility at hidden information. I don’t personally subscribe to Gap Theory, but I don’t discount it either.
However if we take Adam and Eve as figurative and representative, we run into problems with genealogies. Noah was descended from Adam, Abraham from Noah, David from Abraham, and Jesus from David on both sides of the family. Matthew accounts Jesus’ genealogy through Abraham, and Luke’s account begins with Adam.
Personally I see no scriptural basis for taking Adam and Eve as figurative or representative. Adam is regarded as a literal person in the NT (Rom 5:14; 1Cor 15:22,45; 1Ti 2:13-14; Jude 1:14) as is Noah, Abraham, and Moses. So there are some real exegetical problems with strictly allegorical interpretations of Genesis 1. Jude refers to a literal Enoch, who delivered a literal 2nd coming prophecy. Enoch is the 7th generation from Adam.
Remarkably, we find the gospel message encoded into the first ten generations from Adam to Noah, by considering the meaning of the Hebrew names:
Read as a sentence, we get: “Man [is] appointed mortal sorrow; the Blessed God shall come down, teaching [that] His death shall bring the despairing rest [or comfort].”
I’m quite comfortable taking Genesis literally, without being dogmatic about the exact age of the universe. The 6,000 years is a genealogical inference, and is nowhere explicitly stated.
However for other scriptural reasons, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if we find that there have been nearly 6,000 years from Adam. Peter gives us a clue in 2Pe 3:8, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” For seven days of creation, we could very well be preparing to enter His “day” of rest, the prophesied 1,000 year kingdom, where Christ rules on David’s throne.