ICR sues Texas Board of Ed.

[George]

ICR is suing (http://www.texscience.org/releases/icr/ICR-lawsuit-analysis-2009April20.htm)the Texas board members individually, rather than the Board itself, placing greater burdens upon them in hopes of getting favorable results, namely, certification of their Masters Degree in Science program.

Ug, I pray that ICR gets flipped over like ID in Dover.

[Metricyard]

I sure hope the state of Texas isn't that far gone yet. If they get accreditation, it would open up a can of worms for legalized woo.

[George]

I don't think we are that far gone, though I am not close to the heat of this problem, admittedly.

[slang]

I found this analysis (http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/you-dont-trust-creationists-with-your-science-education-heres-why-you-shouldnt-trust-their-lawyers-either/) of the complaint entertaining, and enlightening.

[geonuc]

I found this analysis (http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/you-dont-trust-creationists-with-your-science-education-heres-why-you-shouldnt-trust-their-lawyers-either/) of the complaint entertaining, and enlightening.
Heh. As a lawyer, I did find it pretty funny.

[sarongsong]

...Ug, I pray that ICR...Ug---another case of acronym-itis! :(
What does ICR stand for? Your abbreviation search returned 58 meanings...
acronymfinder.com (http://www.acronymfinder.com/)

[Gillianren]

So what I'm getting here is that their "document" looks not unlike an HB website. Charming.

[Studioguy]

Has anybody actually looked at their curriculum to judge whether it fulfills the qualifications to issue an advanced degree?

[George]

Ug---another case of acronym-itis! :( ICR is the Institute for Creation Research. I thought it was well known and it looks better as an acronym in a title. [Besides, the first words of my link spells it out.]


Has anybody actually looked at their curriculum to judge whether it fulfills the qualifications to issue an advanced degree? From the OP link, it seems there has been likely two panels assembled that chose to disqualify their program. The second panel being more qualified, for some reason, possibly related to knowledge of arguments regarding claims by ICR about their ATM "science".

The real problem is that it is not science. Science allows itself to be falsified by clear and objective evidence whenever it comes along. For instance, the Ptolemaic geocentric model for the universe was falsified as soon as Galileo and even Jesuit scholars saw that Venus exhibited both crescent and gibbous phases. ICR, however, chooses to reject mainstream science, as well as, evidence that falsifies it beyond a reasonable doubt. [AIG (Answers in Genesis) is better in this respect as it rejects the obvious silly views, but they are stuck on one particular literal interpretation that has them embarasingly cornered as it too is contrary to extensive scientific, and testable, knowlege.]

[George]

I found this analysis (http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/you-dont-trust-creationists-with-your-science-education-heres-why-you-shouldnt-trust-their-lawyers-either/) of the complaint entertaining, and enlightening. That is a great write-up from a legal perspective. The idea that ICR is seeking an injunction to get the Texas BoE to do something is sloppy and puerile.

[geonuc]

Has anybody actually looked at their curriculum to judge whether it fulfills the qualifications to issue an advanced degree?
The State of Texas has and their's is the only opinion that counts (absent a court opinion).

[Gillianren]

The State of Texas has and their's is the only opinion that counts (absent a court opinion).

Which sounds, based on my not-a-lawyer's opinion, like it's going to be awfully easy for the judge.