Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit

Wall Street Journal ^ | June 23, 2010 | Clifford M. Marks

[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.”

[muawiyah]

After giving you a chance to see what the "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" was about, you can obviously see that does not open up our judiciary to its use as an arbiter of correct or true religion.

The USSC and the rest of the system are not a Sanhedrin.

Now, how should a judge deal with something when religion intrudes ~ this is a common situation when you have the Batteling Battlies in court asserting that the other party with joint custody to the children is teaching them about Magic Ferries or Invisible Old men, and vice versa.

Certainly it's going to be the tendency of a judge with some religious upbringing to bring his own (religiously formed) wisdom to bear on the problem. At the same time we have laws, and a reasonably competent judge can use the law to provide guidance in these matters. An incompetent judge can't, and in fact, I'd use the occasion of the mention of "religion" in any court decision as a basis for REMOVING the judge or judges from the bench forever.

[allmendream]

He only determined that their religious beliefs were invalid if you assume that the only thing that is valid is science.

Determining a religious belief is not science is not to say that the religious belief is not valid; just that it is not science.

[YHAOS]

"....Intellectual intuition (nous) involves the direct perception of Truth.

Right. You’re discussing certain epistemological, philosophical, and religious realities. I was making an observation about certain political realities. But . . . thanks anyway. Good stuff. ( ^: }

[StolarStorm]

"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."

I AM referring to the timeline. God created everything including science which clearly indicates the existence of an old earth and species change over time. Ignoring the scientific laws and methods which God has used to create man, in my mind is the height of blasphemy. It is not demonstrating faith to believe in a Young Earth, it is an insult to God and his works.

[StolarStorm]

"I believe in "micro-evolution", I think even the most devout Christian believes that species adapt to their environment over time. Where the theory of "macro-evolution" falls down is the belief that we all (and the amoeba and the duckbill platypus) came from the same puddle of goo somewhere. IMHO, this belief takes much more faith than a belief in God."

I've read this view before and never understood why most don't understand the logical fallacy of it. Small changes over time lead to macro changes. A little change here and little change there... and after a 100 million years, you've got yourself a macro difference.

[Fichori]

“Small changes over time lead to macro changes. A little change here and little change there... and after a 100 million years, you've got yourself a macro difference.” [excerpt]

Video or it didn't/doesn't happen.

Saying that is has/does is pure unverifiable conjecture.

[axxmann]

But it is still a theory. Where is the proof? Where is the puddle of goo that we all came from? It still takes faith to believe in macro-evolution.

[axxmann]

But it is still a theory. Where is the proof? Where is the puddle of goo that we all came from? It still takes faith to believe in macro-evolution.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I love your homepage. I miss Michael Crichton to this day.

[Matchett-PI]

Thank you. I do too!

[Stultis]

Judge's opinion here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33449642/Judge-Sam-Sparks-Ruling-in-ICR-v-Texas-Higher-Ed-Coordinating-Board