Slashdot Mirror
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.
If this passes, I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas, and hire every two bit crackpot psychic to be professors!
I'll make a fortune off the gullible who believe in every kind of pseudo-reality!
I'll have leprechaun pots full of gold fast!
*insert evil laugh here*
The study of Creationism (or anything that is not science) cannot be logically classed as a Science program. Just like one can study ballet, it doesn't make sense to give a science degree in ballet since ballet is not a science. Whether the belief in ballet is logical and consistent with reality is irrelevant.
There are many Christians in the scientific community. That doesn't make Christianity science. Think about it this way. I teach my high school students to form Hypothesis's as "If/Then" sentences. "If [this happens], then [that will happen]." (Sure it's a bit simplistic, but this is high school after all.) You cannot make a God Hypothesis. Think about it. "If I pray fervently, then God will heal my mother." Well not always, as often God says no to prayers. You cannot test Him. The Bible itself says you cannot test Him.
Therefore, religion cannot be science.
I've given up on Slashdot's comment scores.
Idiot. There is no such thing as Creation Science. Creationists wanting to provide a degree in science is an oxymoronical concept. (if they can make up fake degree ideas I can make up a word). Read the Dover transcripts if you don't understand why creationism is NOT science. Discovering the theological underpinnings to a theological theory belongs in a theology class. If you clear away the religious baggage of creationism you have....nada...zip...Creationism IS religious baggage. The theory of a divine clockmaker cannot be measured, tested and replicated. The clockmaker by definition is beyond the scope of science. There can be no theory within science the starts with the premise of a deity that is responsible for creating the world and then which forces all observable data to fall under the scope of a book that is taken on faith to be true. Creationism is a purely religious position and always will be. Allowing the awarding of fictional degrees would be just plain stupid, but anyone who believes creation science is real reflects a poor education to start with so it's no surprise the same poorly educated people are in favor of spreading their lack of education. But I forgive them because they know not what they do. god that was funny...
The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to.
Only under the loosest of terms. But there are no "mysteries" of Creationism, at least not ones that are intended to be knowable by Man. God created the world in six days (according to one version of events). We don't care how and have only a passing interest in why.
The "advanced levels of things" in science terms is more like "Why is the weak nuclear force so strong compared to gravity?" What the hell happened during nucleosynthesis?
Creationism isn't a search for answers. It is an answer. It fails the test of Occam's razor: it does not adequately explain the observations, and it postulates unnecessary entities. Call it what you like, but it is not science.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The problem is that the only related field for such a degree is theology. Thus, it should be a Bachelor of Theology degree, not a Bachelor of Science.
There are three problems with this idea.
First, whatever your opinion of "poppycock" degrees, they are drastically different from this degree in creationism. A few examples:
Degree in Religion: You have studied and become an expert on the social phenomenon known as religion. You have studied a number of different religions. This degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of history, philosophy, and anthropology.
Degree in Divinity: While typically granted by 'Christian' universities, this degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of Christian texts and their interpretations and translations. In practice, it is only slightly different from having a degree in any the study of any ancient manuscripts.
Creationism: Creationism 'science' is essentially a list of poorly constructed arguments that attempt to refute evolution. The main requirement for any argument on this list is that they are 'convincing' rather than being accurate. There is no academic rigor to this field.
Creationism does not compare to other religious degrees.
Second, Creationism is currently operating under the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. They don't actually want to be 'accepted', they just want to grab as many headlines as possible. They want big, showy, and silly public debates with well-respected scientists. They don't want to sit down in a lab and prove anything. i.e. Creationists frequently argue that if you place an organism in observation and wait thousands of generations, that organism will not evolve new features. However, no creationist has even attempted to demonstrate this fact. It wouldn't even be particularly difficult to attempt. However, actual scientists have done this experiment and dedicated a massive amount of time to the work. They were rewarded with the exact opposite of the creationists predictions. If you want to know more about this research, please visit :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
The third, and biggest problem with Creationism is that it is a concept, not a field of study. You don't grant degrees in 'ideas'. We don't have a degree for perpetual motion machines, proving Goldbach's conjecture, or any other crackpottery you can imagine. A degree is rewarded for a field of study. What exactly are Creationists going to study?
I am not opposed to this "Degree in Creationism" in the same way I am opposed to Creationism. I want to admit that I think Creationism is absurd. However, I am even more opposed to a degree in creationism for the reasons stated above. I would be equally opposed to a degree is Deism, Skepticism, or any other idea I believe in.
Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something. But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism. I frown at Dawkins (and others) view that Agnostics are cognitively dissodent. It doesn't serve his cause of winning the hearts and minds of the religious, and is provably incorrect.
Atheism just means the absence of belief in god, not the absolute denial of the possibility of existence in god. This is a common misconception. What you are referring to is "hard atheism" which is, more or less, impossible to prove and not really subscribed to.
Self-proclaimed agnostics are either, in reality, "soft atheists" or people pleasers who feel the need to assert their special individuality in such a way that offends the least amount of people.
Basically, if you're not a theist then you're an atheist... because you're without theism. It's not like sexuality where you can swing both ways.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
There's a significant problem with that: falsifying (aka finding possible problems with) evolution or the big bang is hardly proving Creationism. I've never seen a valid defense of Creationism other than "evolution isn't true". The problem is, it's not a binary system. They are not logical opposites. Disproving evolution isn't proving Creation, not by a long-shot. If you want to get a degree in "anti-Evolution" by all means do. But don't pretend that "disproving" some small part of the dominant theory in biological and/or cosmological science negates and renders useless the entire theory, and also somehow provides evidence for an empirically random minor theory.
A good theory has to add value. This means it has to explain everything the old theory explained, and add additional, optimally risky, predictions that the old one didn't, to explain things the old one didn't. That's a pretty daunting task for a theory as big as evolution. If you want to try to counter a specific part of evolution, by all means go at it. But trying to disprove all of evolution by, say, questioning carbon-14 dating, is not the way to do it.
Einstein's theory of gravity won out over the dominant Newtonian theory not because it had Einstein's name on it, or because some religion had nonsimultaneity written in their books. It's because Einstein explained everything Newton did, explained things he didn't, and made very risky predictions as to how things would happen under his theory as opposed to Newton. Many of these have since proved true.
You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.