Want a Science Degree In Creationism?

The Bad Astronomer writes "In Texas, a state legislator wants the ironically-named Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant a Masters degree in science. In fact, the bill submitted to the Texas congress would make it legal for any private group calling themselves educational to be able to grant advanced degrees in science. So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer." The Institute for Creation Research made a similar request to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board last year, but were shot down.

Comments

Re:Names Please

[similar_name]

State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler)

Giggle...

[flajann]

This gives the rest of the world one more reason to giggle at us. I mean, really.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[unlametheweak]

The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.

I think things like parallel universes are mathematical hypothesis. No scientist AFAIK is stating that they exist as a scientific fact.

And yes it is important to keep an open mind. Unfortunately closing oneself off in either a religious community or a scientific community has generally involved historical atrocities. Josef Mengele is no better than Jimmy Jones, and MKULTRA isn't any better than Sharia Law.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't.

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[schon]

By that definition, evolution is not science either. It has never predicted anything and never will.

So tell me, does it hurt to be that stupid?

Re:Working vs. Teaching

[khayman80]

By that definition, evolution is not science either. It has never predicted anything and never will.

I've already discussed this in detail on Slashdot, and have archived the conversation here.

But I'll copy the most relevant part. There are several specific predictions that evolution makes:

1. If a fossil is ever discovered significantly "out of place", like the fossil of a chimp laid down in Precambrian rock strata, that would be the end of evolution. Intelligent design is utterly indifferent to the fossil record because the Creator could simply have designed an intentionally deceptive fossil record.
2. It's strange that all life we've studied uses the same DNA bases- a crucial requirement of common descent. However, a Creator who wanted to leave an indisputable proof of intelligent design could have given every species a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent. It seems like the Creator either used evolution to create life (Catholics take this position) or the Creator manually fine-tuned all life on Earth to look like it had evolved from a common ancestor even though it really didn't. Again, notice that intelligent design is compatible with any experimental outcome, whereas evolution would have been abandoned if every other creature we studied had different nucleic acids.

That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from.

Re:This is not a bad idea

[nneonneo]

Ahem: what you've posted has been rather thoroughly refuted by members of the scientific community:

1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

I highly recommend that you peruse talkorigins.org and determine the veracity of your claims before posting. Anyone with a reasonable grounding in the relevant topics (geology, astrophysics) can quite quickly see that the articles you have linked to are not sound science, merely poor arguments presented to appear as science.