Posted on 06/24/2010 9:15:19 AM PDT by tlb
Austin federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed a suit by the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research, which seeks the right to grant a master’s degree in science from a biblical perspective. And by “dismissed,” we mean the judge tore it apart.
But first, a summary of the suit, as reported today by the San Antonio Express-News. The Institute seeks to offer a masters degree that critiques evolution and champions a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. Texas’s higher education board nixed the group’s application, because of the proposed program’s creationist slant. This, the Institute contended, was a violation of its First Amendment Rights.
That claim was dismissed by Sparks in an opinion that criticized the Institute’s arguments as incoherent. At one point he writes that he will address the group’s concerns “to the extent [he] is able to understand them.” At another, he describes the group’s filings as “overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information.” Click here for the judge’s opinion.
“Religious belief is not science,” Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes said. “Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Why do these people continue to ignore the obvious fact that genesis was allegorical???? It boggles the mind.
There are certain “slants” . . . and then there are other “slants.”
I don’t understand the problem in the first place.
If they want to give a degree in “Puppydog Kissing” they can.
That doesn’t mean that the state must accredit it, but they can grant a degree in anything and some fool will pay for it.
Without questioning either side in this suit, if the education enterprise who offered the degree is unable to, because someone, anyone, does not think it is “science”, then that same judge should take the exact curriculum descriptions of thousands of social science degrees and tell us why he thinks THEY are both rational and understandable to anyone but their creators.
But sometimes science is religious belief, eh? Such as, say, Global Warming. Or the descent of mankind by evolution.
As a free-speech matter, I don't understand how you can get a masters in theology, or in delusional Women's Studies, but somehow not a masters in theologically based scientific theory.
If you read Newton, you find that he considered his theories based on theology. Are today's edu-mication commissions better than Newton? . . . Er, no.
Let there be controversy Darwinism vs. Creationism. But NEVER let there be censorship as there exists now when leftist so-called universities will not even allow the teaching of the ‘creationist theory’. That’s a travesty to not even recognize a popular ‘theory’ in the realm of education.
Sparks is an interesting character, evidently quite colorful and entertaining. Appointed by Daddy Bush. Interestingly he did find in August of this past year that race based admissions are constitutional based upon the 14th Amend.
“On August 17, 2009, Judge Sparks ruled that the University of Texas system can use race as a factor in admitting students into universities that are part of the UT System.”
Religious beliefs are not science. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief.
I've had many people say to me that there is no controvery at all. Creationism is wrong and believers are stupid. All intelligent people agree. No controversy at all.
Myself, I think the Bible is the truth, and I think Evolution is a fairy tale. I don't demand that anyone agree with me, but I resent it when others think my view has no place at the table -- and define "the table" in a way which is precisely intended to exclude people with my view.
Can you issue a master’s degree in man-made global warming sciences?
How about in abortion medicine that posits a fetus is not alive?
How about in psychological study that says homosexuality is normal?
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
What did they do - hire Orly Taitz as their attorney?
secular humanism is a religous order that believes every man is a god.
God didn’t create the universe? God blew up out of cosmic dust too? Or God doesn’t exist?
Where is the allegory behind that?
Not discussing timelines, basic detail of whether God created things or not. Like chicken or the egg.
Let’s see now, don’t we have degrees in:
General Studies
Black Culture or some similar nonsense
Hispanic Culture or some similar nonsense
There are lots of dubious degrees floating around along with tenured leftwing professors that try to indoctrinate your young adults to destroy the Constitution. Nothing new about this though. I went thru similar slanting back in the 60s.
Take back America time is growing short!
Since when do we allow judges to set academic disciplines?
You have black separatist agitators who’ve long taught that the white man is a “white devil” created in an African science experiment gone wrong. They’ll also tell you that black men once had wings.
Again, it may be “allegorical” but we could probably find some school somewhere still using these 20th century legends as “teaching materials” as fact.
>>”Religious belief is not science,” Texas Commissioner of Higher Education Raymund Paredes said.
>
>But sometimes science is religious belief, eh? Such as, say, Global Warming. Or the descent of mankind by evolution.
Heck, try advocating abiogenic oil theory in American Academia: the result seems very much like a religious person’s shock at someone’s unbelief.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.