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.
I guess my age is showing. I prefer to get my degrees through the more traditional approach: mail order.
The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism is just as closed minded and retrogressive as the area of study itself. There are Masters-level degrees awarded for all sorts of fields that most of us would dismiss as poppycock. Religion, Divinity, even Media Studies have advanced degree programs for students interested in the topics.
By bringing serious study and research to this field, we can shed light on it and evolve the field to be at least in line with current scientific thought. Beyond that, it would also be possible to expand the theological underpinnings of the theory and discover the rationale behind it. How much better off would we be if we finally cleared away all the religious baggage of Creationism and brought it inline with real science?
There are many Deists in the scientific community. Why wouldn't the theory of a Divine Clockmaker be a reasonable field of study?
As someone from Texas, I would appreciate the name of the legislator in the summary.
And now that you have made me read TFA, it doesn't mention the legislators name either. I guess Mr. Bad Astronomer felt like taking this opportunity to bash Texas without actually helping people get something done.
When you try to justify anything by using religion, it opens the door to a huge number of problems. Science implies the use of the scientific method, and while they might open a new field of study into trying to prove the existence of God, that is the ONLY way that a science degree in creationism might be seen as legit, but with almost no chance of proving anything.
So, if they want to really study how God could create life, then they would have to go into all those areas that the religious groups are against, like cloning, genetic manipulation, etc.
Just trying to pawn off creationism as other than a way to deny evolution by this sort of stunt just shows how stupid some people can be.
I don't think this was meant to start a flamewar at all! Your opinion is both wrong and full of ignorance! It's people like you who are ruining Slashdot.
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*
To all the people that already answered saying that it is people right to have a degree in Creationism, you are missing the point. The problem here is not the degree per se (there are already Theology advanced degree courses), but calling it a *Science* degree. Creationism is not science, and should not be equated to one. It is the same reason that makes the advanced degree in Philosophy to be a "Master of Arts", and not "Master of Science".
So, now's your chance: that lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back any longer.
I miss the old Chaoseum. I have a couple polo shirts, alumni association mug, auto stickers (including the parking lot passes), multiple T-shirts and the Bachelors and Masters (Medieval Metaphysics) kits from "Old Misk". It was my understanding they got the word to cool it or they might get charged with being a diploma mill? At an IT training about a decade ago I was wearing the Miskatonic U, Dept of Astrology polo shirt and the instructor asked me, "Your university doesn't really have a department of astrology, does it?"
As for Texas, or Oklahoma or much of the South and Midwest, I've been saying on the political blogs that if Chuck Norris wants to lead a secession, let him. Give Bubba a reservation to run free so the rest of us can get on with progress -- and we can deny them visas to return.
Once you start shoveling out these bogus degrees, you get a pool of right wing religious nuts with 'credentials' that make them look like reasonable candidates for educational boards or other public offices. You can be sure that they won't provide any detail on where they got the degree in their campaigning, and the voting public will not be interested enough to check themselves.
"Oh look, Jebus McFearhim Phd is running for the Texas State Board of Education. That's just the kind of learned individual we need."
You can't even argue that creationism is a serious religious line of study. A good religious study is, at least in christian tradition, is deeply prayerful and meditative. It's a rejection of the flesh to try and understand the soul. It's not about this world, but the other. Becoming focused on the making of the earth and engaging in so called scientific debate as creationism does actually misses the point of religion in general and Christ in particular.
Jesus doesn't care how old the earth is. It's here, and its a sufficient vehicle within Christianity for us to make our moral choices. Arguing whether or not its some age or another only serves to deflect from the purpose of a devout Christian's life - to live in accordance with the words of Jesus as son of god. IF Christ would have wanted us to worry about the earth, he would have given us a geologists report on the mount, rather than a sermon.
I would almost argue that creationism is actually satanic!
This is my sig.
This gives the rest of the world one more reason to giggle at us. I mean, really.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
... due to the snide, sophomoric, brain-washed, self-destructive, petty, clever fools who make up 98.317% of its posters.
[Bold added by me]. I'll take that as a compliment.
Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing. It's a miracle anyone passes!
--
make install -not war
Yes, but the an important difference is that science can demonstrate beyond any doubt that pottery and baskets are in fact very real.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
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.
Religion is the antithesis of science, logically. Creationism is more of a specific rejection of science.
Property is theft.
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.
Come off it - the people demanding the ability to grant degrees in "Creation Science" are the ones trolling the rest of the country, and trying to ruin the educatio system.
I have a better idea - if they get this "right" - get the degree, then publish about how creationism is total bullshit, and point to your "credentials" as someone with an "advanced degree in creation science." Make $$$ selling books, appearances on the idiot box/faux news, etc.
I have an even better idea - let them move to Jebus-land. What the rising waters don't get, global warming-driven hurricanes and droughts will. Problem solved.
One of my old professors had a very poignant saying:
Science should explain how things happen, religion should explain why things happen. Every time either side has tried to cross this line, they were wrong.
Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion. When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."
Whereas in science things do get updated, changed, and altered. This is what science does in that it makes us question dogma and come up with solutions.
Many people consider evolution dogma because those who believe do not consider the alternatives. Yet I think if there were plausible alternatives to evolution we would change our thinking.
One example is plate tectonics. We assume that the earth is a constant diameter, but it is starting to become more accepted that the earth might indeed be growing. You might disagree, but there are people who are researching this.
My point is that somebody is indeed questioning dogma...
When was the last time this happened in religion?
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't.
The one good thing about Creationism is that it forces teachers to present the scientific method to the students at a much earlier age. Often the nuts and volts of the skepticism that is the core process of science is skipped over in schools.
Children will say that my pastor showed me a picture of the dinosaurs and the cavemen living together. The teacher will explain that there is a difference between a painting and a photograph, and that with a certain skill, one can paint a picture of anything that looks reasonably like a near-photo.
Children will say that the earth was created in six days, 4000 years ago. Well we weren't there to witness this. But we can show records and artifacts (ones that weren't stolen from the Baghdad museum) that are over 4000 years old.
Creationism forces teachers to instill a spirit of skepticism in students. "I don't believe you, prove it" mentality that is more important that the facts themselves.
A "science" degree in creationism certainly isn't a degree in science. There is no way I would ever hire anyone with such a degree. If anything, I would see them as potentially being very disruptive in the workplace.
There is another way to filter on this than just schools in Texas since I would bet states like Arkansas are going to join in if it flies in Texas.
Filter on the year the degree was granted.
This might not be a bad idea anyway with all the stories of recent graduates needing to be constantly recognized for their "achievements" which is really nothing more than doing the minimum, their lack of attention to any task, little concern for quality, etc.
I know it's a sweeping generalization, but it would be the deciding factor all other things being equal. Just too many stories on how poor the recent graduates are to ignore. Throw in thinking creationism is a science and that makes them laughable.
I actually think that Religion is complimentary to science.
Consider: Religion exists to help us explain the unknown because we're not comfortable (and can't function normally) in uncertainty. That's why every religion has a creation myth - to allow us to formulate a nice, succinct answer to "where we came from." Religion is a scaffold through which we build an understanding of the world.
As we gradually explain the things around us, we replace the religious scaffold with knowledge: That's why it's not generally socially acceptable to longer think that our crops suffer because God is mad at us, or that if we don't pray hard enough, the growing season will not come. We've answered those questions.
But religion is still strong in the area of metaphysics, like what happens after we die. That's something that 'science' may never explain, because it does not deal with the physical world. Even if you don't believe in an afterlife, you've convinced yourself of such. That, in essence, becomes your 'religion.'
Because, let's face it - Nobody has proven the existence of "God" or "gods," but nobody has disproven it either. All we've done with science is replace some of the beliefs that we've held previously, like creation, with other beliefs that seem to have more of a basis in the physical world. But even the most rigorous scientist cannot point to the evidence for there *not* being a supreme being.
I think if you strictly adhere to the principles of the scientific method, the question of "Is there or isn't there a $(DEITY)" should be answered with "there is not enough data to support either assumption." Anything more than that is you projecting your already-held beliefs into the mix; something that "real" scientists would abhor. You're not letting the data speak for itself.
So, religion continues to gives us a cognitive scaffold ("sense-making") method for understanding the bits of our experience that we cannot explain yet. Science has become a religion, not because it provides "real" answers (because, lets face it, they're called "theories" because with sufficient evidence to their contrary they can be replaced), but because its adherents believe that it can provide answers to things that it has not sufficiently explained yet. (this is called "faith" in religious circles). Adherents to "science" seem to bash adherents to "religion" without understanding that they're essentially trying to do the same thing, just with different methods. In fact, I would say it's the same mechanism that has Jews fighting Muslims, Catholics fighting Protestants, Baptists fighting Anglicans, Human Global Warming vs. Natural Global Warming, Big Bang vs. The Cyclic Model etc.
We are resistant to that which we do not understand, and do our damndest to prove the other person wrong when we don't understand what they mean.
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.
Ask a solipsist.
No, I'd rather shoot a solipsist in the face. After all, the reality of my gun going off in their face is purely subjective, and if they decide that it's not "real" to them, they should be just fine.
It's one of those few situations where the old "I'm philosophically right because I'm still alive after the duel" argument is actually valid.
These solipsism arguments could also be called "argument from pretentious stupidity", and have no place in a discussion about the real world.
How on earth do you get a PhD in creationism? The whole point of creationism is that it is grounded in biblical literalism. To get a PhD you are supposed to make a substantial contribution to the field, which seems to be at odds with the idea of creationism.
Now, I think one should be able to get a PhD in other (existing, humanities and sciences) fields by providing an authoritative study of mythological patterns in Genesis 1-3 as well as textual constructions, philology, structural anthropology, etc. But that is hardly the same thing as a PhD in creationism. Even if you could get a PhD equivalent in creation theology, the proper venue is as a doctor of divinity.
I say this having made substantial contributions to the field of practical rune-magic.
Although I think Robert Zoller certainly does deserve an honorary PhD for his work on topics related to astrology (whether it is through the philosophy department or the history department is a question for others). However his contributions, discussing the Renaissance significance of the Arabic Parts, their roots in Neo-Platonism and the relationship between neo-Platonism in the Middle-East and that in the West, etc. is groundbreaking both from a historical and a practical perspective. Similarly his work looking at Scandinavian sky lore is extremely interesting.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
... I don't care if God exists. IMO, too much time, money and energy has been wasted on the topic. Time to move on.
If you post it, they will read.
In the "bible belt" you will be ostracized from your community if you mock religion (though it's acceptable to insult atheists). In other countries you can actually get killed for mocking religion.
Really, mocking religion on the internet is the only safe outlet a lot of people have.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
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?
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:
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.
The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations. Most physicists focus on the predictions, which have been verified to an absurd number of significant figures. Students work problems that give real, experimentally testable answers.
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue. Be careful not to let the interpretations of the equations obscure your view of the equation itself.
Throw in thinking creationism is a science and that makes them laughable.
I don't know, I'd be pretty impressed with a scientist that could describe mathematically how the universe was created in 7 days. Even more so if he could reproduce the results in a lab.
Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion.
Speaking from personal experience, this is very nearly completely untrue in Judaism.
When was the last time anybody happened to say, "you know the bible/koran/tora needs updating, let's change a few paragraphs shall we."
Most likely not the most recent example, but see Reform Judaism
The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations.
[snip]
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue.
Yes, I appreciate and agree with all of that. Which is why I've previously suggested on /. that in scientific terms most religious view points are actually interpretations. They're explanations of "how can it be like that", but you don't let them get in the way when you're doing your science.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
When was the last time this happened in religion?
All the time.
Changes in the dogma of Anglican churches over women priests are a recent example.
The history of the early church was full of debates.
All the founders of religions challenged the dogmas of existing religions. All the reformers of religions challenged existing dogma.
It happens slower than in science because there is rarely any new evidence to consider
Scriptures are not changed, but that would be dishonest. It would be like the police changing witnesses' written statements because of evidence they were mistaken or lying. The correct thing to do in both cases is to present both the statements and the evidence or arguments contradicting them.
Also, an annoying idiot has gone away. That's a positive outcome in my books. It's not interpretation, it's cold hard reality - they're dead, and their argument has failed.
"you're degree is worthless."
Unlike you're's, I guess.
A rabbit in the Cambrian. A fossilized dinosaur with a human skeleton in its stomach. Things of this nature are quite contrary to evolution's predictions.
Well, that's the hardest part of falsifying any prediction.
When do you say "We've searched long enough, the prediction is most probably wrong"?
For instance, when do we stop looking for the Higgs boson if LHC can't find it?
Do we say the prediction of the particle is wrong or do we build a more powerful accelerator?
The most important prediction made by evolution is that we should see genetic differences between different generations of a species, that a species or race should be able to change over time and that we, with long enough observation (a small detail religious people often fail to comprehend), should be able to witness the appearance of totally new species.
I fail to see how evolution would be falsified by having dinosaurs found alongside humans or by having fossils older than we previously thought possible anyway.
That would mainly give problems to some theories regarding geology, decay of radioactive isotopes, archeology and such.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)