So called creation "college" seeks states okay to train teachers

Atomic_Piggy

Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,485
Reaction score
2
Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Dallas school plans master's in science education, fueling debate over teaching evolution

Texas' debate over teaching evolution is going to college.

The nonprofit Institute for Creation Research in Dallas wants to train future science teachers in Texas and elsewhere using an online curriculum. A state advisory group gave its approval Friday; now the final say rests with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which will consider the request next month.

The institute's proposal comes amid a fierce debate over how to teach evolution ? the theory that humans and other species evolved from lower forms of life ? in Texas public schools.

Some advocacy groups are attacking the creation institute's plan, saying it's an attempt to undermine the teaching of science in public schools.

"They teach distorted science," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education, which opposes teaching creationism in public schools. "Any student coming out from the ICR with a degree in science would not be competent to teach in Texas public schools."

The institute was created in 1970 by the late Henry M. Morris, a Dallas native known as the father of "creation science," the view that science ? not just religion ? indicates that a divine being created the Earth and all living things.

Patricia Nason, chairwoman of the institute's science education department, said that, despite the institute's name, students learn evolution along with creationism.

"Our students are given both sides," said Dr. Nason, who has a doctorate in curriculum and instruction from Texas A&M University. "They need to know both sides, and they can draw their own conclusion."

The institute, through its graduate school, wants to offer an online master's degree in science education.

According to the school's Web site, it offers typical education classes, teaching such fundamentals as how to use lab equipment, the Internet and PowerPoint in the classroom. But it also offers a class called "Advanced studies in creationism."

And the course Web page for "Curriculum design in science" gives this scenario: "The school board has asked you to serve on a committee that is examining grades 6-12 science goals. ... Both evolutionist and creationist teachers serve on the curriculum committee. How will you convince them to include creation science as well as evolution in the new scope and sequence?"

The school has offered science degrees in California for years. It offered its first graduate courses in 1981, and its first online courses about two years ago.

The institute began moving its headquarters from the San Diego area to Dallas last year, making it necessary to get approval from the state of Texas to offer degrees here.

The school now has more than 50 students taking online classes all over the world, school officials say.

Private schools

Most graduates have gone on to teach in private schools, Dr. Nason said, though some may want to teach in public schools.

That's what scares people like Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network, which also opposes teaching creationism in public schools.

"It just seems odd to license an organization to offer a degree in science when they're not teaching science," Mr. Quinn said.

"What we're seeing here is another example of how Texas is becoming the central state in efforts by creationists to undermine science education, especially the teaching of evolution."

A group of educators and officials from the state Coordinating Board visited the campus in November and met with faculty members. The group found that the institute offered a standard science education curriculum that would prepare them to take state licensure exams, said Glenda Barron, an associate commissioner of the board.

Dr. Barron said the program was held to the same standards that any other college would have to meet.

"The master's in science education, we see those frequently," she said. "What's different ? and what's got everybody's attention ? is the name of the institution."

The advisory group that approved the plan Friday includes professors and administrators from six colleges ? two public and four affiliated with religious institutions.

One member of the team that visited the school has a background in math and science education. But no one on the team or the panel that gave approval Friday has a background in pure science, records show.

That's a problem, said Dr. Scott of the National Center for Science Education.

"It sounds like the committee may have just taken at face value what the ICR claims," she said.

In California, the institute is recognized by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, a group that Dr. Morris helped form.

But Texas doesn't recognize that accrediting agency. So the institute needs state approval to offer degrees while it pursues accreditation from a recognized agency, most likely the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

Dr. Scott predicts that won't be easy.

"There's a huge gulf between what the ICR is doing and what they're doing at legitimate institutions like ... [the University of Texas] or Baylor," she said.

The institute says the purpose of its graduate school is to prepare science teachers "to understand the universe within the integrating framework of Biblical creationism using proven scientific data."

In 1988, California education officials tried to remove the institute's authority to grant master's of science degrees, arguing that the program didn't pass academic muster. The institute sued the state, arguing that the decision violated its constitutional rights. The school received $225,000 in a 1992 settlement. By then, a new state panel was in charge of evaluating such private schools.

Time zone considered

The institute's founder, Dr. Morris, who was an engineer by training, died last year. His son Henry Morris III is the institute's chief executive officer. He told The Dallas Morning News last year that the institute moved to Dallas because "it's in the Central time zone, with a good airport." But he also noted that Dallas is a "strong Christian center" that would support teaching from a creationist perspective.

The institute's search for approval in Texas comes just weeks after the science director of the Texas Education Agency resigned under pressure over allegations that she had inappropriately endorsed evolution. She had forwarded an e-mail about a talk in Austin by a professor and author who opposes teaching creationism in public schools.

The state Board of Education is set to revise its science curriculum in the coming year. Current regulations require the teaching of evolution, but many conservatives in Texas want teachers to address what they see as weaknesses of evolution. Some scientists say, for instance, that cells are so complicated they can't be fully explained by evolution.

Dr. Nason said the institute wants to help schoolchildren perform better in science, and to encourage them to go into math and science fields.

Dr. Scott sees other motives. Institute officials, she said, "very much want to get these views in the public schools. They believe that evolution is an evil idea that students should reject because they believe if students learn and accept evolution, they'll give up their faith."


The School and it's beliefs


INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH

Offices: In Dallas and Santee, Calif.

Annual budget: $7 million

Faculty members: four full time

Students: more than 50

Degrees: master of science degree in science education with minors in astro/geophysics, biology, geology and general science.

School: The institute runs its own graduate school that offers master's of science education degrees. Its stated mission: to "research, educate and communicate Truth involving the study and promotion of scientific creationism, Biblical creationism, and related fields."

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School sets out its educational philosophy and beliefs on its Web site, www.icr.org.

On its philosophy: The institute says its administration and faculty are "committed to the tenets of both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism." It says the two "are compatible ... and all genuine facts of science support the Bible."

On public schools: The institute "maintains that scientific creationism should be taught along with the scientific aspects of evolutionism in tax-supported institutions."

SOME TENETS OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM

?The physical universe "was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity."

?Life "was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator."

?All plants and animals were "created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism."

?Evolution since creation is "limited to 'horizontal' changes (variations) within the kinds, or 'downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

?Humans "were specially created in fully human form from the start."

SOME TENETS OF BIBLICAL CREATIONISM

?The creator of the universe is a triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

?The universe was created "in the six literal days of the Creation Week" described in Genesis.

?All human beings descended from Adam and Eve.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2...seeks-states-OK-to-train-teachers,Dallas-News

Bloody hell. I hope reason will win through here, because once one starts others will follow suit.
 
Creation college? ... means less bigoted assholes going through our public academia.
 
That's nothing, in India you can get a masters in Astrological Science. :x
 
No worse than getting a doctorate in Theology.

But they should call it something else, just so people in academia can differentiate the people who were taught reality and the people taught bullshit.
 
Does anyone at all still believe in those tenets? I thought science gained at least some ground in having logical evidence against Genesis. You can't just throw away all our knowledge of the importance of time in Geology and still hope to be taken seriously as a scientist.

The fact that this has been allowed to happen and that people actually care so much about their religious beliefs to want to build this in the first place is beyond me.
 
I didn't say it was wrong. I said that studying theology is no better than studying astrology.
Is this an objective study of religion or just some class that tells you to read the bible? The former is certainly better than studying astrology, though I may be mixing theology with philosophy.
 
Man, at least with Islam they don't pretend and just get it all out there, they are religious fanatics and want science dead.

No, not with fundie stupid American Christianity, that repeatedly attempts to get itself weaseled into places it doesn't belong.
 
Is this an objective study of religion or just some class that tells you to read the bible? The former is certainly better than studying astrology, though I may be mixing theology with philosophy.

Theology is the study of the "meaning" of the bible, just as astrology is the study of the "meaning" of the movements of the stars and the impact they have on our lives.

Theology begins with the assumption that the bible stories are true, and then makes a priori arguments based on these false premises to arrive at conclusions about life. It's akin to philosophy in that things are arrived through reasoning alone, but unlike philosophy it begins with mindless, faith-based presuppositions.

An objective study of religion would be in the field of sociology or anthropology, not theology.

Astrology beings with the presupposition that stars have an impact on our lives, and uses simple rules and to develop complex prophecies. But, like theology, the fruits of astrology are foundationless gibberish because they are based on presuppositions without evidence.
 
Why do these people have such a hardon for ****ing creationism? Evolution doesn't stop Christ from being the son of God, evolution doesn't undermine Christianity in anyway shape or form, except for making one stupid little story in the Bible obsolete.

Last time I read the Bible was many years ago so maybe the importance if Genesis was lost on me...but I honestly don't see why that story is so important to these creatures.
 
Why do these people have such a hardon for ****ing creationism? Evolution doesn't stop Christ from being the son of God, evolution doesn't undermine Christianity in anyway shape or form, except for making one stupid little story in the Bible obsolete.

Last time I read the Bible was many years ago so maybe the importance if Genesis was lost on me...but I honestly don't see why that story is so important to these creatures.

You don't take the bible innerantly, if you did you'd be angry at the evolutionists.
 
Pretty sure that if you remove God directly from the equation, he becomes more obsolete, too.
 
Why do these people have such a hardon for ****ing creationism? Evolution doesn't stop Christ from being the son of God, evolution doesn't undermine Christianity in anyway shape or form, except for making one stupid little story in the Bible obsolete.

I know, even the Catholic Church has accepted evolution, and a Pope has said that Darwinism doesn't conflict with Catholicism. And we all know how progressive, liberal and forward-thinking that organisation and it's leader tends to be...
 
Why do these people have such a hardon for ****ing creationism? Evolution doesn't stop Christ from being the son of God, evolution doesn't undermine Christianity in anyway shape or form, except for making one stupid little story in the Bible obsolete.

Last time I read the Bible was many years ago so maybe the importance if Genesis was lost on me...but I honestly don't see why that story is so important to these creatures.

The very idea of evolution undermines the human-centered Christian world view. It means, quite frankly, that mankind was not designed by an intelligent entity, but the product of a blind mechanical process. This makes the whole idea of a god deciding to punish mankind for "sins" quite ludicrous, which undermines the point of Jesus "descending" in the first place.

It also means that all of Genesis is simply wrong. And if Genesis is wrong, that means that the bible is not the "word of god", and that all parts of it should be taken with skepticism.

This unnerves many people, so rather than change their beliefs, they dispute the evidence.
 
Seriously, could you guys stop with this thread and just be tolerant? It's not like I'm making fifty "I hate atheism!" Threads.
AND THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD. MISINTERPRETATION FTL.
 
Why do these people have such a hardon for ****ing creationism? Evolution doesn't stop Christ from being the son of God, evolution doesn't undermine Christianity in anyway shape or form, except for making one stupid little story in the Bible obsolete.

Not even that -- the bibles just one big book of cryptics and religious poems. Maybe the author should have liked to have written: "Oh, a time in the Kingdom of god is liek, omg rly long, so, stuff evolved and ..."

But then ...

Christian Torture Squad.
 
oy, what is it your concern what people learn. you make a big deal out of this, but if a muslims open an MIT college, no words. Let people learn as they wish. prehuman history is like, useless in life. when will you need it if your a normal joe?
 
oy, what is it your concern what people learn. you make a big deal out of this, but if a muslims open an MIT college, no words. Let people learn as they wish. prehuman history is like, useless in life. when will you need it if your a normal joe?
Never underestimate the importance of education. I'm willing to bet you studied mathematics thinking "When am I ever going to use this?" It turns out some of us do.

Lets just say none of the people educated at this college are going to be hired for geological evaluation to search for oil deposits.
 
Seriously, could you guys stop with this thread and just be tolerant? It's not like I'm making fifty "I hate atheism!" Threads.
AND THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THE EARTH IS 6000 YEARS OLD. MISINTERPRETATION FTL.

Not directly, but the this italian guy proved it using the ages of the people like Noah.
Also, I'm not making like 50 threads about religion, just about creationism. The entire point of this thread is how retarded it is, not how retarded religion is.
 
Never underestimate the importance of education. I'm willing to bet you studied mathematics thinking "When am I ever going to use this?" It turns out some of us do.

Lets just say none of the people educated at this college are going to be hired for geological evaluation to search for oil deposits.

Math you will use. Math is life. there is no conflicting things withing math that any faith has. it is universal.


and oil is heading out any ways. besides, what does geology have to do with creationism?

Not directly, but the this italian guy proved it using the ages of the people like Noah.

seeing as how most people were supposedly hundreds of years old AND counted families, not people, that could be 10s of thousands of years.

and, it could only be talking about the mammalian time period only

Now the earth BECAME formless and empty

SPOILERS!
TEH DINOSAUR COMMENT MADE THE WORD FORMLESS AND EMPTY!
 
Math you will use. Math is life. there is no conflicting things withing math that any faith has. it is universal.


and oil is heading out any ways. besides, what does geology have to do with creationism?

More knowledge is never a bad thing.
 
yea great, but what does it mater how old you think the earth is? I think it's billions, others think thousands. F 'em. Let people think as they will. Looking back, you force people to learn something and all you get is hell.
 
and oil is heading out any ways. besides, what does geology have to do with creationism?

Well, for starters, that means the Earth is flat. Second moutains and all that shit would be formed by the flood.


yea great, but what does it mater how old you think the earth is? I think it's billions, others think thousands. F 'em. Let people think as they will. Looking back, you force people to learn something and all you get is hell.

I agree. Let them believe what they want. Let them think its thousands of years old if they can't count higher. But don't try and put it in the education system like these inbreeds are trying to.
 
and what, you suppose if they teach it in schools the next generation won't be that way? HA. Kids learn beliefs and attitudes from parents, everything else from school. Besides. Democracy = majority rule. I see you're from England. Enjoy your system. In America, we do what the most people want. I suppose each other's views are incompatible but whatever.

and where exactly does it say the Earth is flat. it says dome, but hey, people only knew about half the earth and the first Christians I THINK believed the Earth was round before the Roman acceptance of them.

And the bible never says anything about mountains getting formed in the flood. just crap loads of water. and just as my own opinion, it says the mountains were covered with water, but never submerged. tidal wave? maybe the flood stayed in the lowlands but initial tidal waves of the water influx covered the mountains with a wall of water. that could happen.
 
and what, you suppose if they teach it in schools the next generation won't be that way? HA. Kids learn beliefs and attitudes from parents, everything else from school. Besides. Democracy = majority rule. I see you're from England. Enjoy your system. In America, we do what the most people want. I suppose each other's views are incompatible but whatever.

Britain is a democracy. :|

and where exactly does it say the Earth is flat. it says dome, but hey, people only knew about half the earth and the first Christians I THINK believed the Earth was round before the Roman acceptance of them.

In genesis it says about "the foundations of the Earth" or some shit. Literalists take this to mean that the Earth is, quite literally, standing on pillars, and thus is flat.

And the bible never says anything about mountains getting formed in the flood. just crap loads of water. and just as my own opinion, it says the mountains were covered with water, but never submerged. tidal wave? maybe the flood stayed in the lowlands but initial tidal waves of the water influx covered the mountains with a wall of water. that could happen.

The flood didn't happen. Period. Its simply illogical. When the animals leave the ark (and god knows how billions of creatures fit in the ark) everything is dead. Thus, plants are dead. So what did they eat? It gets even crazier when you realise the entire flood is dependant on the elusive "water-canopy" around the Earth. Yeah. The one that doesn't exist.
 
and what, you suppose if they teach it in schools the next generation won't be that way? HA. Kids learn beliefs and attitudes from parents, everything else from school. Besides. Democracy = majority rule. I see you're from England. Enjoy your system. In America, we do what the most people want. I suppose each other's views are incompatible but whatever.

and where exactly does it say the Earth is flat. it says dome, but hey, people only knew about half the earth and the first Christians I THINK believed the Earth was round before the Roman acceptance of them.

And the bible never says anything about mountains getting formed in the flood. just crap loads of water. and just as my own opinion, it says the mountains were covered with water, but never submerged. tidal wave? maybe the flood stayed in the lowlands but initial tidal waves of the water influx covered the mountains with a wall of water. that could happen.

Jesus Christ.

Firstly, England is a Democracy you tool. I don't suppose you know that the USA is a constitutional republic, by the way, not a democracy. Whoops.

This rubbish about the flood is equally laughable. Would you care to explain where all that water went? Because to my knowledge you can't just make matter cease to exist, so it's gotta be round here somewhere. To put it simply - No, it could never have happened. There isn't enough of the stuff.
 
It also means that all of Genesis is simply wrong. And if Genesis is wrong, that means that the bible is not the "word of god", and that all parts of it should be taken with skepticism.

This unnerves many people, so rather than change their beliefs, they dispute the evidence.

The Bible is full of parables... moderate Christians (the majority) take Genesis to be one of them. The problem is with the thick hicks.
 
I know England is a democracy. that's obvious. But in America it's how we role, so whatever. I respect your way in your country, so yea, whatever.

And submerged means to be underwater. covered could be anything from splashing it with a bucket of water to it raining. Covered doesn't equal under. Does "cover yourself with an umbrella" make sense? no you say either use an umbrella or go under it.

But yea, I agree the flood isn't 100% accurate. everyone was in lowlands and farms then. The first possible areas to be struck with a flood if say, oh an ice cap melted or something?
 
I know England is a democracy. that's obvious. But in America it's how we role, so whatever. I respect your way in your country, so yea, whatever.

And submerged means to be underwater. covered could be anything from splashing it with a bucket of water to it raining. Covered doesn't equal under. Does "cover yourself with an umbrella" make sense? no you say either use an umbrella or go under it.

But yea, I agree the flood isn't 100% accurate. everyone was in lowlands and farms then. The first possible areas to be struck with a flood if say, oh an ice cap melted or something?

Aye, thats quite a possibility as too how the myth perputuated intially, then various cultures past the meme onwards until it found itself in the bible. There is more than one religion featuring a global flood. Of course "global" is a ridiculous exagreation.
 
Aye, thats quite a possibility as too how the myth perputuated intially, then various cultures past the meme onwards until it found itself in the bible. There is more than one religion featuring a global flood. Of course "global" is a ridiculous exagreation.

At the time the supposed flood might have happened people probably had very narrow horizons. Any flood covering an area greater than local would probably be assumed to be global. Them being not very advanced at the time.
 
well some have said that there was an entire lost civilization at that time (Atlantis) because the Bible says something along those lines. But that's just pure theory.

Well,any old tidal wave could get as high as mt. everest. Could it stay that high? no, but it could reach it. And any shock of such would lead to people thinking it was global. Indians talk bout it too. There was probably a solar flare then that melted a ice glacier or two causing massive floods. all you'd need then is an earthquake to rattle it up a bit.
 
So what exactly was Noah's Arc a parable of, anyway?
 
I think there was one or one half as big a few thousand years ago or something. I don't know. It was on TV.
 
Back
Top