Jan. 16

Questions Delay Creationist Master’s Degrees

Scientists fearful that Texas was about to approve a program to offer online master’s degrees in science education — from a creationist perspective — received some good news Tuesday.

Looking for a job?

See all 206 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,554
Administrative: 2,163
Executive: 162
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

The Institute for Creation Research, which received preliminary approval last month from an advisory committee to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, asked the commission not to consider the matter at this month’s meeting. The institute acted after the commissioner of higher education sent the institute a series of questions about its program — questions that weren’t considered in the initial review.

The commissioner stressed in an interview Tuesday that he is open minded about the creationists’ request for degree approval and that the authorization could still be granted. But with the matter off the agenda of this month’s meeting, the creationist group will have to wait until the coordinating board’s next meeting, in April, for approval. And some of the questions to which the commissioner is seeking answers — such as why the master’s program based on creation science is so different from every other science education program in the state — may be difficult to answer.

News that Texas might approve the master’s program by the institute became public in December and quickly alarmed many scientists and other educators in Texas. So-called creation science is viewed as non-science by a wide consensus of researchers — but is also viewed as dangerous, given how little most Americans know about science.

The idea that the state might give its OK to a new program to train teachers to instruct children in creation science set off alarm bells and calls for the commission to hold off on approving the institute. At the same time, the issue is delicate politically — many Texas lawmakers (not to mention President Bush, a former governor) have argued that discredited theories such as intelligent design should be given equal billing with evolution in science courses.

Raymund A. Paredes, commissioner of higher education for Texas, said he has received numerous e-mail messages from politicians and others offering advice on handling the institute. He said that the office of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican who has also argued for teaching evolution and creationist ideas at the same time in schools, has been informed of the process being used, and has encouraged the coordinating board to follow its normal procedures.

The institute has been offering degrees from a base in California, but is shifting many operations — including the master’s degree program — to a Texas base. Because the institute is not regionally accredited, it needs state coordinating board approval to offer the degrees. While the institute says that its courses teach evolutionary theory as well as creationism, the institute makes no effort to suggest that it is open to traditional scientific views.

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.

Paredes said that he has raised three “concerns” with the institute, asking for more information for coordinating board review:

Online learning. “Given all the research that demonstrates that science is best learned by actually doing it, how are you going to give students the proper exposure to the experimentation side of science online?” Parades said that this question is one he would ask of any online science program and wasn’t related specifically to creationism.
Curriculum. “Their curriculum doesn’t line up very well with the curriculum available in conventional master of science programs here in Texas,” he said. “I wanted them to either revise the curriculum or explain why it departed from the norm.”
Research. Paredes said that the institute “claims that their faculty do actual research,” so he asked for “material that documented the research activities under way” and that show the research to be “based on solid scientific research.”

Until the institute answers those questions, Paredes said, he is not making up his mind about whether to recommend approval to the coordinating board. He said it was “not unusual” for him to raise questions after an initial review and approval, and that people should not assume that the proposal is dead just because of the questions and the request for a delay.

“Because this is an issue that’s controversial to a lot of people, we want to make sure we look at this matter throughly and fairly,” he said.

Officials for the Institute for Creation Research declined to be interviewed for this article, but issued a press release noting the initial approval received from the advisory committee and pledging to provide the additional material requested by Paredes.

The press release said that the institute was “pleased” to “demonstrate its compliance and its competency in the fields that it teaches.” The release also said that the goal of its graduate programs was “to provide teachers with the scientific knowledge and teaching skills necessary to actively engage their students and to prepare scientifically literate graduates.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

A successful campaign against pseudoscience

The Institute for Creation Research sent out a “prayer alert” on this issue yesterday, so they are clearly disturbed by these new questions. They claim that this recent setback is because the press and academics “exploded in a vitriolic effort to denigrate ICR". If indeed the “intensely negative campaign” against this attempt to make Texas “the new Kansas” is really working, let’s keep it up. Our ICR friends helpfully provide the addresses of the THECB commissioner:

Dr. Raymund Paredes Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 1200 East Anderson LaneAustin, TX 78752-1743

Raymund.Paredes@thecb.state.tx.us

Dr. Paredes should hear from us again about the differences between science and pseudoscience. Accrediting the ICR program would be a serious political and intellectual error for Texas and the nation.

The ICR creationists are trying out a new argument, by the way, in this appeal:

“Pray for the THECB Commissioner, Dr. Raymund Paredes, and his staff, that they will see the difference between experimental science (laboratory research) and forensic science (interpretations of present data about historical events). ICR teaches exactly the same experimental science as any university, but we have a very different perspective when it comes to forensic science (origins, pre-history). Pray that such distinctions will be made clear.”

The logic is that they can have high standards in one aspect of science and a “very different perspective” in another. Again, ICR demonstrates that it doesn’t have a clue as to what real science is about. They do not meet universal standards to administer an accredited advanced degree in science. Let’s make sure Texas knows this.

Mark A. Wilson, Professor of Geology at The College of Wooster, at 6:30 am EST on January 16, 2008

Other possible degrees

I’m not really into Creation Science so I wonder if they will be offering a Masters degree in Flat Earth geology?

PCS, at 8:50 am EST on January 16, 2008

Context

The questions Paredes raises are good ones — too bad the public institutions in Texas don’t have to answer them. Isn’t this what we call a double-standard?

1. Online learning. I have yet to see objective standards for online experimental scientific learning that apply to the colleges and universities accredited in the South. This sword cuts both ways. Why hold creationists to a higher standard than the publically funded institutions?

2. Curriculum. “Their curriculum doesn’t line up very well with the curriculum available in conventional master of science programs here in Texas,” he said. “I wanted them to either revise the curriculum or explain why it departed from the norm.” The response to this is far more complicated, with historical roots going back to the Scottish Enlightenment and common sense realism, which predate the emergence of modern scientific community. The ideal of Baconian science that is followed by the early Christian fundamentalists, like Charles Hodge and Robert Lewis Dabney, could not function without a basis in the Bible — for them, as for creationists today, there could be no science that did not illumine the truths of the Bible.

This kind of Baconian science corresponds with the natural theology of that period, and is what motivated the first physical scientists in Britian. To compress history, this proved to be a “trojan horse” for those working from Scottish realism, of course, because it enabled Charles Darwin to turn the entire enterprise on its head, destroying faith in the process.

This is why, for example, Darwin is viewed as traitor and an atheist intent on attacking the Bible, and this is why he needs to be dismissed out of hand. For Darwin’s bitter opponents, there could be no science that does not illumine the truths of the Bible. This is the reason — the historical reason — why creationist course content differs so markedly from the state guidelines. 3. This same perspective would also explain how neo-Baconian scientific research activites differ from the activities of non-fundamentalist scientific communities (my apologies to those with sympathies and interests in both — their social networks probably bridge these two communities).

All this plays out in American fundamentalism — a huge connected social network — particularly in the South. Reference should be made to Robert Lewis Dabney, the father of Southern fundamentalism, and chaplain to General Stonewall Jackson. Dabney very early on decried Darwin, refused public education on predestinarian grounds, and helped to formulate the idea of inerrancy of the Bible. On the basis of the latter, and followed by fundamentalists since, Darwinism is and will continue to be a target and controversial.

Without insight into these historical dynamics, we end up missing much of the substance of these debates.

Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at FHEAP, at 9:05 am EST on January 16, 2008

Please Do It!

It is my sincerest hope that Commissioner Paredes will see fit to approve the creationist effort. the approval would make “Texas the new Kansas” and get that damn monkey (no relation) off our backs!

Kansas Darwinuan, at 9:05 am EST on January 16, 2008

ICR’s New Argument

A previous comment mentioned that the ICR Creationists are trying out a new argument in their appeal:

Texas Citizens for Science has already posted a response to this argument on their website at http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-duality-science.htm.It is an old Creationist argument that has no merit. This link also contains a complete copy of ICR’s prayer-request message to its friends.

TCS previously published a long report on the entire ICR issue at http://www.texscience.org/reviews/icr-thecb-certification.htm. There is quite a bit of information about ICR and their history in this report, especially their experience in California in obtaining accreditation for their Creationist masters degree program in science education.

Steven Schafersman, President at Texas Citizens for Science, at 10:40 am EST on January 16, 2008

“...for them, as for creationists today, there could be no science that did not illumine the truths of the Bible.” Thank you, Mr. McGhee. Finally, someone that has something academic to say about the situation.

It boils down to this: If you believe in God, and salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ, then all science points to Him and, thus, Creation Science makes sense. If you do not fully believe, or are not fully sure you beleive in the God of the Bible, and that the Bible is wholly “Truth,” with a capital T, then there is a place to debate both Creation and Evolution, as they are both answers to the same question, “Who are we and why?” If you do not believe in the God of the Bible, then Creation Science is a myth, followed by the unenlightened. Creation Science is only dangerous to those who fear finding an answer they do not want to find (possibly such as Prof. Wilson). Evolution is the same way. If we stop being afraid of the Truth, maybe one side or the other will prove itself. And, no, evolution is not a scientific “fact.” I beleive in the end, we will know one way or the other. Here is to hoping I am right! ;-)

Southern Fundamentalist, at 11:00 am EST on January 16, 2008

The Sun does not revolve around the Earth

“The response to this is far more complicated, with historical roots going back to the Scottish Enlightenment and common sense realism, which predate the emergence of modern scientific community. The ideal of Baconian science that is followed by the early Christian fundamentalists, like Charles Hodge and Robert Lewis Dabney, could not function without a basis in the Bible — for them, as for creationists today, there could be no science that did not illumine the truths of the Bible.”

Bacon notwithstanding, while historical context is interesting it is not the issue. Galileo and Copernicus let the genie out of the bottle on “religious infallability". Try as they might fundamentalists can’t put the genie back in the bottle.

No one should begrudge a “religious school” the right to teach it’s own religious tenets, despite the fact that the point of Jesus Christ was that he “became as man” and had his own doubts and faced them. Jesus never argued his own infallability, it is an intuitive leap that fundementalists make.

The problem here as I see it is “truth in advertising". There is nothing to alert the unwary that the proposed “science curriculum” is really a degree in religion. Lets not call it a “master of science in science of any kind". It is not!

R.F., at 11:30 am EST on January 16, 2008

Do you believe in magic?

The cited requirements for employees of ICR clearly demand belief in a set of ideas. What most people understand as “science” (including those who claim to practice science) is the acceptance only of those beliefs and theories that empirical evidence and experiment can validate, usually through predictive validity, by the agreed-upon standards set with skeptical observors who can replicate the process. No, scientific theories are not ‘facts’—they are just the best explanations we have until something with better predictive validity comes along. ICR seems to require that its employees think that the Big Guy on stage REALLY DID saw a person in half and then put the two halves back together again, by the authority of an ancient text translated from a dead language. Call that what you will, but most of us will not describe that as “science.” More than that, it does a dis-service to those doing the hard work of science to mis-use the label.

An Old Goat, at 11:35 am EST on January 16, 2008

Treating creationalism as a valid science might be a stretch. Discounting creationalism as invalid because there is no known scientific evidence is small minded. Researching creation by intelligent design should be embraced by the scientific community, not necessarily discounted as not possible. If the creationalism believers believe that God made man and all there is, then what are we to determine when man unravels and understands the genomes, and the bio chemistry of life enough to cause life to happen in a test tube? In the future it may be possible for man to invent forms of life! Would that be looked at as Man playing God or would that be deemed the very proof that intelligent design is possible? We maybe alone in this universe, but I wouldn’t think so.

Bill, at 12:25 pm EST on January 16, 2008

New Help with an Online course

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!

Diogenes, at 1:15 pm EST on January 16, 2008

Let’s hear it for broader accreditation. How about new programs in astrology, reading chicken entrails, etc? Let’s stop the cruel and heartless discrimination against voodooism. Who can argue with the great economic success of Haiti?

marvin McConoughey, at 1:45 pm EST on January 16, 2008

It is a diversity issue

“Bacon notwithstanding, while historical context is interesting it is not the issue.”

On the contrary, by ignoring the historical context, we box ourselves in — into monocultural thought-worlds. This problem is all about diversity — cultural and intellectual — the lack of which would undermine the integrity of the Ivory Tower.

Now, I have no way of knowing what constitutes the fundamentalist scientific community (as they would define it) or how large or small it is. But I can say that the chasm that separates Baconian science from modern science is enormous. And from the point of view of social network theory, this chasm is a “structural hole".

In terms of Ronald Burt’s social network theory, the bigger the “structural hole” the better — once it has been bridged.

SNT shows that bridging structural holes of this kind results in new insights and is the frontier of new knowledge and innovation.

Why? Because bridging structural holes requires path independence and creativity.

But in order to bridge structural holes in social networks, you have to have (you guessed it) diverse points of view.

Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project, at 2:15 pm EST on January 16, 2008

Desperately looking

I have been trying to finish a thesis in Phlogiston theory and can’t find a proper school that would accept my thesis. I sincerely hope that the state of Texas approves the ICR degree! I think that the Bible proves me right and Phlogiston clearly explains combustion, metabolism and the formation of rust (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory).

Let us pray for the return of ‘alternative science’ and epistemologial diversity.

Gerry Mats, at 2:35 pm EST on January 16, 2008

Hey Marvin, there is already an astrology college in Washington, and you can get a masters degree there, and it is accredited.

It will no doubt disappoint and confuse you, but world-class scholars support it.

sk, at 2:35 pm EST on January 16, 2008

Diversity

Darwin argues that diversity is the issue as well. An organism may evolve down many paths, but only those that successfully adapt will survive.

Ironically faith and reason/science might be posited as paths as well. However, if any pursuit lends itself to monocultural thought-worlds it is religion. Another word for monocultural thought worlds is fundamentalism, after all.

Lots of folks bemoan the “lack of diversity” in the ivory tower. Frankly, I don’t see it.Students from every race, religion, creed, gender and country of origin come together, physically and virtually, to study, posit ideas and conduct research using time proven methods, peer review and then publish and share with the entire world. If that is not diversity, please explain what would be better.

“The chasm that separates Baconian science from modern science is enormous. And from the point of view of social network theory, this chasm is a “structural hole". In terms of Ronald Burt’s social network theory, the bigger the “structural hole” the better — once it has been bridged.”

Again, while your knowledge of social network theory is admirable, it is not the issue. The chasm is caused by individuals of faith denying the plethora of evidence(Galileo, et al) in order “to remain strong” in their faith, which is their right to do, but lets not call it science.

R.F., at 3:55 pm EST on January 16, 2008

Galileo?

I agree: “Another word for monocultural thought worlds is fundamentalism, after all.” The point is we live in a multiperspectival world. That is the reality.

We could be having this same conversation about Islamic scientific traditions as well (which can also be creationist).

“The chasm is caused by individuals of faith denying the plethora of evidence(Galileo, et al) ...” Yet do not forget that Galileo was a practicing astrologer that did not, as a result of his scientific studies, give it up. But, according to your argument, he should have.

What is missing here is the broader view, with its recognition and respect for other points of view. Sounds like the Ivory Tower to me.

Glen S. McGhee, FHEAP, at 4:30 pm EST on January 16, 2008

Scientific Traditions

We are really ranging here in our discussion. To go back to the question posed by the article, “should this institute be allowed to offer a masters degree in creationist science?’ I would say yes, as a religious degree, not as a degree qualifying someone to teach science.

I don’t care who’s scientific tradition you put forth, if someone sails to the edge of the sea, he/she will not fall off the edge and be eaten be demons whether believer or athiest. There are all sorts of traditions that have gone into disuse over time. I think that is what is at the core of this discussion, i.e. that there are in every faith a small, but vocal group of fundamentalists whose greatest fear is that they are losing their religious traditions, but maybe they are just evolving...

R.F., at 5:05 pm EST on January 16, 2008

Still about diversity

RJ wrote: To go back to the question posed by the article, “should this institute be allowed to offer a masters degree in creationist science?” I would say yes, as a religious degree, not as a degree qualifying someone to teach science.

Again, this is about diversity.

The history of higher ed accreditation embraces diverse institutions, and gives them an amazing amount of latitude. There are, as a consequence, no national standards.

1. Until we have national accreditation standards, and not the hodge-podge of regionally varying non-standards, accreditation will amount to little more than a rubber stamp of institutions. The sucking sound you hear is tax dollars going down the drain.

2. At the level of the state, there is a little more regulation, however, Texas recently lost in federal district court for over-reaching itself in regard to restricting the awarding of degrees and certificates. Again, diversity seems to dominate.

In sum, it is meaningless to talk about distinctions between masters degree in creationist science, religious degrees and degrees qualifying someone to teach science — they do not yet exist for regional and state accreditors. Nor will they in the future.

But I wonder why the non-public institutions in Texas are held to a higher standard than the public institutions. I have yet to see objective standards for online experimental scientific learning that apply to the colleges and universities accredited in the South. Why hold creationists to a higher standard than the publically funded institutions?

Glen S. McGhee, FHEAP, at 7:00 pm EST on January 16, 2008

Rhetoric

Painting Creationists with a broad stroke of the superstitious-uneducated-peasant brush is really as bad as any other stereotyping done by people of no understanding. I believe in a young earth and a Creator. I am considered rather intelligent, a leader in my community, and I have maintained excellent grades in my doctoral program. I have studied and have a good grasp of Darwinian Evolution and actual Creation Science, as opposed to Sunday School Bible stories. I understand good research and good science. I do not believe in a flat earth or sea monsters at its edge. I do not believe witches should be burned or that women should be barefoot and pregnant. I actually sought out a clear understanding of where I came from and studied both theories (yes, they are both theories.) I, using my intelligence, my understanding, my reasoning, and all the available evidence, believe the Bible is right and that Creation Science is more accurate than Darwinian Evolution. I also used historical evidence and research to determine what I believe and found ample evidence that Jesus was who he claimed to be. I am a Christian and a Creationist not because of my heritage, though admittedly that is where I started, but becasue of my research. Try it sometime. I have a working knowledge of Darwinian Evolution. Do you know anything substantial about Creation Science?

Southern Fundamentalist, at 6:15 am EST on January 17, 2008

Southern Fundamentalist:

You are delusional. Not stupid or uneducated. For your enjoyment here are some videos — each contains multiple parts, but I’m confident you’ll figure out how to proceed. The first is a documentary on the real origins of Jesus:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58JyacWEFbE

The second provides further background on the astrotheological foundations. You need only watch the parts on religion, the rest isn’t pertinent:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE&feature=related

Finally, the PBS documentary which explains why Intelligent Design (a morph of Creation Science) isn’t science. Scroll down and click on Judgement Day — Intelligent Design on Trail:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/

Faith Healer, at 10:45 am EST on January 17, 2008

risk to NCLB compliance, interstate licensing arrangements?

The Board needs to hear that by interpreting their standards in a way that allows approval of the ICR degree program, they would risk violating the No Child Left Behind law, and jeopardize their reciprocity agreements for teacher certification with other states.

See http://curricublog.org/2008/01/12/icr-nclb/

Tony Whitson, University of Delaware, at 12:50 pm EST on January 17, 2008

ICR Master’s Degree

Southern Fundamentalist, what is your doctrinal progam in? Five to two it’s a divinity degree.

Glen McPhee(sp.?) — Are there any publicly funded universities in the South or anywhere else which offer online master’s degrees in science? There’s no double standard on that issue vis a vis the ICR program unless there’s a comparable publicly funded program.

Barb, at 1:30 pm EST on January 17, 2008

Unless I am delusional, you lost that bet!

Barb and the Faith Healer,

Sorry, Barb, but you lost that bet. I am neither in religion nor attend a religious university. Stereotyping is ok when we do it to someone we disagree with, right? ;-)

Faith Healer, I do not believe I am delusional. Nothing else anywhere in my life or background point to being delusional, so other than your opinion that religious views are invalid, I have no other evidence to being crazy (though I can be a little goofy and I do tell a lot of corny jokes).

I find that most people that do not want to do the research easily fall back on name calling instead of academic discussion. Again, besides watching TV (and YOUTUBE???), what do you really know about Creation Science OR Jesus?

No offense...but I have done my research, have you?

Southern Fundamentalist, at 2:35 pm EST on January 17, 2008

Southern Fundamentalist:

I would be curious to know how exactly you define “theory". I also would be curious to know why you feel that creationism, which as far as I am aware has not produced any useful research at all into, say, disease origin, cladistics, treatments, genetics, or physiology, is on par with a science that manages to fill well over 200 weekly or monthly journals (and has done so for decades) with research which actively makes and tests predictions and adds to our knowledge in all those fields. If you have such a “good grasp” of science, how do you deal with creationism in light of the fact that good science, above all, is both predictive and productive? Do you have any tangible evidence to give us that creationism is either? What research has it produced? What work is being done on that basis?

And, how would you account for things as small but important as the appearance of HbC and HbE forms of human hemoglobin? Or as significant (from an evolutionary biology point of view) as the extraordinarily well documented speciation event of Spartina anglica? Or the fundamental role that homologies play in bioinformatics, and the fact that the nested heirarchies of gene divergence illustrated by those homologies is so completely consistent with our best understanding of the organismal family trees’ “descent with modification from a common ancestor"? Furthermore, what evidence —of anything— do you have which can only be explained by special creation, and cannot be accounted for by evolutionary science?

I realise this must sound arrogant to you, but every single time without exception that I have run across someone who claims that they have “done the research” and have “a good grasp of the science” and “came to the conclusion that creationism was correct” — it turned out that their “education” in science and biology was entirely or almost entirely from creationist, not scientific, sources, and consequently their understanding of both science and biology were based on lies, omissions, and misrepresentations of the real fields.

Evolution is the commonly accepted basis for the modern understanding of biology and modern research for one reason, and one reason only: that it works, and works well. If you don’t understand this, or how or why this is so, then either your knowledge of the science isn’t nearly as good as you think it is, or you merely(!) have a deep emotional need to believe in a certain worldview which enables you to ignore all contradictory evidence ("the Bible said it, I believe it, that trumps physical evidence"). These two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Either way, if you want something to be taken as a science, then it has to act like a science, and it has to stand up to the tests of science. Creationism really, genuinely fails on all counts, by demanding that one start with a conclusion and discard or ignore all contradictory evidence, by depending on an unknowable, untestable supernatural explanation and ignoring the physical, mechanistic workings of the material world, and by not producing active research or predictions. Science cannot be apologetics, and vice versa. Evolution, on the other hand, fits what we know and what we are able to observe, provides a coherent framework of explanation, and paves the way to more interesting questions, and is tremendously, tremendously productive.

If you don’t have the information on how and why this is so, I would be happy to point you to some real resources.

Lynne B., at 2:45 pm EST on January 17, 2008

Southern Fundamentalist:

Someone who is delusional is not crazy. I was referring to the clinical definition of delusional. Similiar to the fourth paragraph of Lynn B.’s comments...where the evidence is overwhelming on a subject but a person nonetheless takes a contrary position.

Yes, I have studied Creationism, Jesus, and many other religious topics. I have done so in much greater depth than the video links I provided.

My purpose in providing the video links was to provide you with a simplistic rebuttal (a picture is worth a thousand words). If you are familiar with their topics, than so be it. But if not, I would hope that they would generate some query on your part and you would follow-up with your own research.

Faith Healer, at 3:10 pm EST on January 17, 2008

Glen McGhee:

I keep seeing you say “But I wonder why the non-public institutions in Texas are held to a higher standard than the public institutions. I have yet to see objective standards for online experimental scientific learning that apply to the colleges and universities accredited in the South. Why hold creationists to a higher standard than the publically funded institutions?”

Most online science programs are run by already-accredited institutions, who are required to demonstrate how they meet standards on a regular basis. Do you actually have reason to believe that they are not required to give evidence of how experimentalism is covered in online programmes, or do you merely assume it from the fact that accreditation for these degrees is regularly granted?

Speaking from experience of online MSs, there are a number of ways in which accredited science degree programmes handle the issue, from running “virtual labs” online with proprietary and specialised software to requiring several weeks per year actual residence to do lab work.

If you think that different standards are being applied, I recommend that you write to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation ( http://www.chea.org/default.asp ) and ask them about it.

Lynne B., at 4:45 pm EST on January 17, 2008

CHEA empty

Hey Lynn, My impression of CHEA is not favorable. Here’s why: http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/02/qt

Report critical of CHEA: http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/07/23/qt

And more on “unfair playing field” for public versus non-public institutionshttp://insidehighered.com/news/2007/07/20/california

And here’s more on how the battle for evolution is going in North Florida: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/011708/met_237288652.shtml

Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountabilty Project, at 6:20 pm EST on January 17, 2008

Creationism (and ID) is nothing more than an attempt to make “miracles” an accepted part of science.

MelM, at 8:00 pm EST on January 17, 2008

Not science

Seems to me that any organization that requires anyone affiliated with it to subscribe to a statement of faith that includes biblical inerrency on questions of scientific fact has, ipso facto, disqualified itself from acceptance as an organization teaching science. If you insist on the factual truth of anything a priori, regardless of what the evidence says, you’re not using the scientific method and you’re not doing science.

knutsondc, at 8:10 pm EST on January 17, 2008

Absurdity!

2+2=5.

That is.. for extremely large values of 2.

You see, you can come to any answer that you want, assuming that begin your questioning fully ready to twist the elements of equation.

You can’t call Creationism science, because it begins with the assumption that there is a Creator — an assumption which is not falsifiable.

The question, as addessed: “Should it be allowed?” R.F. above stated “I would say yes, as a religious degree, not as a degree qualifying someone to teach science.”

The problem with this answer is that there are plenty of theological universities that would be glad to provide master degrees for a study in religion. However, this is not the case in this instance. This “school” is trying to pass theological study off as science — which would be academic dishonesty.

Its sad enough that the United States is already among the least educated in the world, in science and mathematics — and now we are trying to dillute the validity of science that we are teaching??!?? This is utter insanity, and simply cannot be allowed.

Nathan Kulas, Mr. Safety, at 4:10 am EST on January 18, 2008

I’ve actually followed creationist writings for many years. This has cost a little money because the Creation Research Science Quarterly used to (maybe still does) charge more money to people who won’t say they follow its beliefs. It’s like they don’t want nonbelievers to know what they write.

There was one interesting exchange of letters from a creationist who was unaware of the thermodynamic partition function. Generally the math and physics there, which is what I’m most competent at judging, is rather bad.

I’ve even read the Tychonian Bulletin, which seriously argued that the sun revolves around the earth. I met W van der Kamp, its editor, a few decades ago. Very nice guy. I disproved one of his misstatements about special relativity (SR) using an exercise from my SR text.

Creationists do seem to be, at the least, intellectually very sloppy. Why is the 2nd law considered so fundamental? It’s not really a law like gravity etc, more of a statistical statement. However they think it supports them. They think that because they misquote it. It doesn’t say that entropy increases; it says that Gibbs free energy increases. No one who is ignorant of Gibbs free energy belongs in a thermodynamics discussion.

It’s really fun to read Creationists’ views on special relativity. They try to say it’s illogical; quoting the twin paradox. Unfortunately, SR’s internal consistency is that of a mathematical linear transformation. Explaining the twin paradox is trivial.

I’ve wondered why Creationists don’t attack quantum mechanics. There’s something that is illogical. Its only defense is that its predictions are true and it works.

Creationism student, at 6:05 am EST on January 18, 2008

Mr. Kulan and others:

This entire movement to undermine science and history must be stopped. Everything from this degree, to the $20M+ Creationist Museum, to revisionist archaeology. See for example: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/fauxark/

For your information, the “founder” of the Intelligent Design movement, Dr. M. Behe will be on the radio today at 3 p.m. CST. You can listen live at http://kkms.com/LocalHosts/15/. They will likely give a call-in number. I urge any PhD-level biologists to call in and calmly respond to any misstatements.

Otherwise, it will take a physicist like me. Creationism Student — they nitpick the 2nd Law, but ignore the 1st which says that energy (and its mass equivalence) can be neither CREATED nor destroyed.

Faith Healer, at 7:20 am EST on January 18, 2008

Glen McGhee: While those are interesting stories, I’m not entirely sure what, there, supports your initial allegation that state and publicly funded universities are being held to lower standards than small, private colleges.

I would additionally like to point out that (1) it looks rather as if California were “state approving” a large number of unaccredited and probably unaccreditable small schools, which would explain why the ICR operated there to begin with; and (2) the argument that the current system does not do enough to ensure quality, is hardly an argument for having less quality control. ANY institution being held to a reasonable standard for quality is a good thing, surely?

And, as with other commenters here, I cannot see any reason why this travesty should be allowed to be certified as science. It fails to be science at a very basic level. Once again, though, I would like to see some specific evidence that public institutions are being held to lower standards than what has been required here.

As for the situation in Florida, I think we can take that as evidence that public science education already sucks badly, otherwise this existing level of ignorance about evolution and science would not exist.

Lynne B., at 11:05 am EST on January 18, 2008

evolution as a fact

Actually, if you were to define a fact as an accepted truth supported by a long accumulation of affirming evidence with zero evidence to the contrary (which, I would assume most of us do) then evolution is indeed a fact. It is a fact that organisms undergo natural selection and evolve over time. It is a fact that organisms share a common ancient ancestor. This has been proven time and time again through things such as intermediate fossil forms or homologous structures. If you were to believe that a god created humans, you would then be forced to answer the question of why are we not an optimal being? If we were simply created, wouldnt it make more sense that every aspect of our bodies and physiology be at the most optimal state? And clearly this is not the case. Our vertebrae are poorly desighned for walked upright. Our airways and food pathways are poorly designed to allow choking. Things like this however, can be explained if you step back and realize that we did in fact evolve from another suboptimal being.

kristy, university of texas, at 1:55 pm EST on January 18, 2008

Kristy:

That we observe evolution (like we observe falling) is a fact. No doubt about it. Darwin provided a comprehensive explanation for evolution, “On the Origins of Species". Newton provided a comprehensive theory as to why things fall, with his Principia.

Even if someone improves on Darwin’s theory, as Einstein did on Newton’s, evolution is still a fact. Things still do fall.

And Newton’s theory is still useful for the vast majority of day-to-day applications.

This might also interest you:

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0812/features/fish_out_of_water.shtml

Faith Healer, at 2:50 pm EST on January 18, 2008

Creationists fear free inquiry

The loyalty oaths that creationist colleges require of their faculty and students have been mentioned, but deserve a further look. In some (many?) cases, the faculty are required to reaffirm this annually, or lose their jobs. Could any of the readers of this blog who both support creationism and defend equal time please defend this?

My explanation follows. The historical tendency of educated free-thinking fundamentalists including creationists is to (pick one:)

- succumb to heretical false prophets, or

- see the light and realize that fundamentalism is not scientific.

E.g., the reason for the “young earth” clause in some statements of faith is to marginalize the gappists. The gappists are creationists, so they think themselves, who try to rescue creationism by postulating a gap of billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

As another example, IIRC, the American Scientific Affiliation used to be creationist then went soft.

Even mainstream creationism might be considered soft compared to a few decades back. I remember when mainstream creationists attacked radio-isotope dating. By now, most of them accept seem to accept it, or at least attack it by hypothesizing variable physical constants. (The original attacks were on the competence of the labs and the paucity of tests.)

Going back a few centuries, this is the history of established Christianity in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Given this history, thinking creationists know that free enquiry will kill the purity of any creationist organization. Therefore they have to oppose it or die ideologically. Therefore, the scientific method is a mortal enemy. If creationists would acknowledge this, I would at least respect their honesty. But they don’t.

creationism student, at 3:30 pm EST on January 18, 2008

Good points Creationism Student.

I don’t understand why someone hasn’t sued the Discovery Institute and the Creation Museum?

There must be a former believer who can claim that science was actively and knowingly misrepresented to him/her (and maybe kids). I can’t do it, because I would be disingenious, but there must be hundreds of people who could. Perhaps a class-action lawsuit.

The person(s) will have to have been truly harmed by the misrepresentations (mental anguish, hours spent restudying, dollars spent travelling to the Museum, etc.).

Maybe even science educators have a case. Using the recent NAS report, the statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Dover vs. Kitzmiller case, etc. I think educators could claim that the large Creationist organizations have caused them suffering by continuing to falsely promote pseudo-science. Yes, the Creationists are allowed freedom of speech, but there are limits. Calling a food additive sugar when it’s really arsenic comes to mind. I’m not an attorney, but something to think about.

Faith Healer, at 6:55 pm EST on January 18, 2008

KEPLER COLLEGE

sk: “Hey Marvin, there is already an astrology college in Washington, and you can get a masters degree there, and it is accredited.”

No, it’s not accredited. “Discredited” would be a better word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_College

jay, at 6:55 pm EST on January 18, 2008

More on acccrediting standards

Lynne wrote: “I’m not entirely sure what, there, supports your initial allegation that state and publicly funded universities are being held to lower standards than small, private colleges.”

There are big differences pertaining to faculty. As in California, so in Florida: public schools do not have to vouch for their faculty credentials — they are exempt from standards applied to non-public schools — because regionally accredited schools get a free ride.

Now, some of the big for-profits (UoP) bought out other colleges with regional accreditation, and have some protection, although not always. The most recent FL OPPAGA report on transfer of credit told of an unidentified FL CC whose policy it was to DENY credits any non-regionally accredited school.

FL’s CIE and SNCS forms for listing new courses show very clearly this discriminatory practice: these state agencies overlook faculty for public schools, even in dual enrollment, while the non-publics must provide documentation. This evidence supports my claim that the for-profits are being forced to meet HIGHER standards than are the public schools.

I left my meeting with CIE in shock, realizing that once the state handed over the accreditation monopoly to SACS, the state relinquishing complete control, what a benefit this was to the public institutions — they were no longer accountable to anyone! What a rip-off!

Lynne “I would additionally like to point out that ... (2) the argument that the current system does not do enough to ensure quality, is hardly an argument for having less quality control. ANY institution being held to a reasonable standard for quality is a good thing, surely?”

What about the institutions (public) that get away with not having qualified faculty?Why is this a good thing? NOT.

Let me state the problem: the minimum standards of HEA 1992 (34 CFR 602) were never implemented by the US Sec of Ed.

“Once again, though, I would like to see some specific evidence that public institutions are being held to lower standards than what has been required here.

See above.

“As for the situation in Florida, I think we can take that as evidence that public science education already sucks badly, otherwise this existing level of ignorance about evolution and science would not exist.”

You have no idea how powerful and pervasive fundamentalism is in the South. You also have no idea how important diversity and tolerance are, from the early days of Jacksonian America, for higher education.

Glen S. McGhee, FHEAP, at 8:40 pm EST on January 18, 2008