×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Want a Science Degree In Creationism?

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the i'll-order-a-dozen dept.

Education 848

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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

848 comments

That's Fine With Me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278273)

I mean, real schools offer up degrees in philosophy, pottery, and basket weaving and who knows what.

Let's not throw stones so easily around here.

I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious.

Re:That's Fine With Me (-1, Troll)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278305)

What schools give degrees in pottery and basket weaving?

Re:That's Fine With Me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278335)

Here's a bunch. [google.com] I just SMOKED YOU BITCH!!! Don't ever question me again!! YOU GOT PWNED!!!

Re:That's Fine With Me (1, Troll)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278373)

I may be "PWNED", but you didn't answer my question. You did give me a Google list of art colleges, etc.

Re:That's Fine With Me (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278327)

I love how slashdot posts these creationism stories to stir up the flamewars and mock the religious.

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.

Re:That's Fine With Me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278439)

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.

So what part of "ironically-named Institute for Creation Research" and "lack of a PhD in Astrology and Alchemy won't hold you back" do you consider to be non-"mocking"? Your foolish comment about "people like you ... ruining Slashdot" is so ludicrous it hardly bears commenting on, but I'll take a shot at it anyway: Slashdot is beyond being ruined... it was totally flawed right out of the gate and is only getting worse... due to the snide, sophomoric, brain-washed, self-destructive, petty, clever fools who make up 98.317% of its posters.

Re:That's Fine With Me (3, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278473)

... 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.

Re:That's Fine With Me (5, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278583)

Yes, but the an important difference is that science can demonstrate beyond any doubt that pottery and baskets are in fact very real.

Re:That's Fine With Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278603)

But, a degree is just a level of education and attainment in a subject, so why should you not be able to have a degree in pottery? The question is since when was creationism a science, not whether you should be able to have a degree (presumably an arts degree) in it.

Re:That's Fine With Me (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278625)

The question is since when was creationism a science, not whether you should be able to have a degree (presumably an arts degree) in it.

That would be a degree in philosophy, not arts.

Working vs. Teaching (1, Interesting)

alemaco (1419141) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278275)

Why not? If you then get a job in a related field I have nothing to object. It's full of weirdos out there, some with a weirdo PhD would only be easily recognisable. However, I wouldn't be that happy if you chose to teach my children.

Mail Order (5, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278277)

I guess my age is showing. I prefer to get my degrees through the more traditional approach: mail order.

Re:Mail Order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278491)

My Doctorate of Divinity from the Universal Life Church won't hold as much water anymore. But I do think it would look great on a resume along with a Ph.D. in Alchemy.

I'm playing manager and as we know those who cannot do manage and it is all a healthy amount of 'creationism' anyway.

Creationism... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278283)

is the antithesis of science.

This is not a bad idea (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278285)

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?

Re:This is not a bad idea (4, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278309)

Deists and creationists have relatively little in common.

Science can only be done by following the scientific method, creationism is the opposite of that, it is dogma warmed over.

Re:This is not a bad idea (0, Flamebait)

Jame_Retief (1090281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278587)

Thus sayeth the man who is open-minded enough to let any original though escape unharmed from his grasp.

Re:This is not a bad idea (2, Interesting)

Valtor (34080) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278671)

Disclaimer: I do not believe one bit in creationism.

I agree that the scientific method needs to be applied to creationism. But I would like to know if by following the scientific method we could disprove creationism?

Can we disprove creationism? Because science is not about proving anything, it is about disproving hypothesis and then we work with the ones that we can't with all our might disprove. As long as an hypothesis has not been proven wrong, it stands!

So I'm just curious, did we or can we disprove creationism?

Valtor

Re:This is not a bad idea (5, Insightful)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278397)

The study of Creationism (or anything that is not science) cannot be logically classed as a Science program. Just like one can study ballet, it doesn't make sense to give a science degree in ballet since ballet is not a science. Whether the belief in ballet is logical and consistent with reality is irrelevant.

Re:This is not a bad idea (2, Insightful)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278457)

The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.

Science = Gotta Wear A Darwin Fish on your car is kind of closed-minded as anything else. It's characterized by surrounding yourself by people who exclusively think like you already think, and not being challenged.

Re:This is not a bad idea (4, Interesting)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278509)

The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.

When one parallel universe gets raped by a divine parallel universe and gives birth to another divine parallel universe which is then killed and resurrected with a zombie army of parallel universes ....

Yeah, ok, so that was a horrible attempt at an analogy, but my point was: you're completely wrong. As strange and counter-intuitive as quantum physics can be, it doesn't even begin to approach the level of crazy which most religions embrace as their founding principles.

Re:This is not a bad idea (4, Funny)

Evanisincontrol (830057) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278527)

It's characterized by surrounding yourself by people who exclusively think like you already think, and not being challenged.

Like going to a church or something?

Re:This is not a bad idea (5, Informative)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278547)

The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to. Parallel universes, etc. The "god story" doesn't sound so wierd once you get to the advanced levels of stuff.

I think things like parallel universes are mathematical hypothesis. No scientist AFAIK is stating that they exist as a scientific fact.

And yes it is important to keep an open mind. Unfortunately closing oneself off in either a religious community or a scientific community has generally involved historical atrocities. Josef Mengele is no better than Jimmy Jones, and MKULTRA isn't any better than Sharia Law.

Re:This is not a bad idea (5, Insightful)

Tenebrousedge (1226584) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278579)

The ironic thing is the scientific method ultimately brings one back to the same sorts of mysteries that Creationism want to jump straight to.

Only under the loosest of terms. But there are no "mysteries" of Creationism, at least not ones that are intended to be knowable by Man. God created the world in six days (according to one version of events). We don't care how and have only a passing interest in why.

The "advanced levels of things" in science terms is more like "Why is the weak nuclear force so strong compared to gravity?" What the hell happened during nucleosynthesis?

Creationism isn't a search for answers. It is an answer. It fails the test of Occam's razor: it does not adequately explain the observations, and it postulates unnecessary entities. Call it what you like, but it is not science.

Re:This is not a bad idea (5, Interesting)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278405)

No, this is a bad idea.

They just want to be accredited to validate their point.

This doesn't make any sense. Creationism isn't a field of study. It would be like being aloud to give out degrees in capacitance instead of having it be just part of an EE degree.

What is there to study anyway? It's just based on what's in the bible.

It's pretty sad really. Like they don't believe the Bible is authoritative enough and they need a state government to give it credence. Maybe more ironic.

Re:This is not a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278627)

It's pretty sad really. Like they don't believe the Bible is authoritative enough and they need a state government to give it credence. Maybe more ironic.

The Bible is authoritative for believers. It's not to secularists who, in their perverse view of things, believe the government is the final word. By having a secular imprimatur, non-believers will have to accept the degree, lest they be thought of as hypocrites.

Oh, wait a minute.....

Re:This is not a bad idea (5, Insightful)

DallasMay (1330587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278447)

There are many Christians in the scientific community. That doesn't make Christianity science. Think about it this way. I teach my high school students to form Hypothesis's as "If/Then" sentences. "If [this happens], then [that will happen]." (Sure it's a bit simplistic, but this is high school after all.) You cannot make a God Hypothesis. Think about it. "If I pray fervently, then God will heal my mother." Well not always, as often God says no to prayers. You cannot test Him. The Bible itself says you cannot test Him.

Therefore, religion cannot be science.

Re:This is not a bad idea (5, Insightful)

digibud (656277) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278453)

Idiot. There is no such thing as Creation Science. Creationists wanting to provide a degree in science is an oxymoronical concept. (if they can make up fake degree ideas I can make up a word). Read the Dover transcripts if you don't understand why creationism is NOT science. Discovering the theological underpinnings to a theological theory belongs in a theology class. If you clear away the religious baggage of creationism you have....nada...zip...Creationism IS religious baggage. The theory of a divine clockmaker cannot be measured, tested and replicated. The clockmaker by definition is beyond the scope of science. There can be no theory within science the starts with the premise of a deity that is responsible for creating the world and then which forces all observable data to fall under the scope of a book that is taken on faith to be true. Creationism is a purely religious position and always will be. Allowing the awarding of fictional degrees would be just plain stupid, but anyone who believes creation science is real reflects a poor education to start with so it's no surprise the same poorly educated people are in favor of spreading their lack of education. But I forgive them because they know not what they do. god that was funny...

Creationism is satanic. (5, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278463)

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!

Re:This is not a bad idea (4, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278465)

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?

Serious study and research into the evolution of man and origin of our planet and the cosmos is already being done. Getting creationism in line with "current scientific thought" would pretty much destroy the fundamentals behind it. The idea that the universe is 6000 years old does not fit and can not be made to fit without a leap of faith that usually discounts any research and knowledge gained as lies or Satanic propaganda.

In short, if you "cleared away all the religious baggage" from creationism you leave nothing. Creationism is by definition religious baggage.

Re:This is not a bad idea (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278477)

The idea that one can't study or learn anything from the study of Creationism

That is not the point. I have a MSc and I worked hard for it.

Re:This is not a bad idea (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278497)

Is difficulty the ultimate metric for advanced degrees?

Maybe you worked hard because you aren't particularly suited to the field you studied?

How do you know that a degree in Creationism isn't as difficult as your field of study?

Re:This is not a bad idea (1)

theturtlemoves (932428) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278505)

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?

Clearing away the religious baggage of creationism would leave nothing. So yes, let's do it!

Re:This is not a bad idea (1)

Fungii (153063) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278519)

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.

Creationism fundamentally conflicts with scientific thought, there is no light to be shed - creationism isn't a field of science with discoveries to be made, it is one theory with absolutely no supporting evidence.

Re:This is not a bad idea (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278531)

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.

At first I thought you were serious, but the mention of evolution convinced me otherwise.
There is no evolution. Therefore, creationism cannot evolve.

Have at that, ye pesky evolutionists!

Re:This is not a bad idea (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278551)

The study of a divine clockmaker could be quite interesting if some new testable ideas were put forward. For instance: a physical process by which the "clockmaker" can influence the universe, restrictions on what the "clockmaker" can do, how this stuff interacts with relativity and quantum mechanics. Simply saying the universe is X number of years old is not very interesting.

Re:This is not a bad idea (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278573)

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?

We might be better off but there wouldn't be much left - Creationism is pretty much all religious baggage. All you'd be left with is the remote possibility that some aliens seeded life on earth with some simple bacteria around 4 billion years ago.

Why wouldn't the theory of a Divine Clockmaker be a reasonable field of study?

It might or might not be a reasonable field of study - but it wouldn't be a scientific field of study. At a practical level, a science degree is about studying the scientific consensus.

Even if we ignore the scientific consensus and ask whether Creationism is science, the answer is still "No." There are a whole variety of problems with the basic Young Earth Creationism as a scientific theory - including both logical inconsistencies and inconsistencies with factual observation. A key problem, though, is Occam's razor.

Imagine that you have a clay jar. You could measure its size and its weight and if you came back tomorrow there is a high probability that the jar would have the same measurements. You could even put a few coins in the jar and, assuming you put the jar in a place where no one was going to mess with the jar, you could come back tomorrow and the coins would have a high probability of still being there.

But suppose you put the coins in the jar, put a cap on the jar, shook the jar so the coins bounced up and down and then claimed (without looking in the jar) that all the coins were oriented in the "heads" position. If you shook the jar up again before looking in the jar then you would never actually know what orientation the coins had been in but, if you looked in the jar without shaking, you would have a high probability of being wrong.

When you add details to a (proposed) scientific theory that are not based (possibly indirectly) on factual observation then one of two things happens. If it's fundamentally impossible to ever observe the details then there's no point in including the details. On the other hand, if the details could (eventually) be observed then, the more details you add, the higher you probability of being wrong.

Creationism, depending on the particular flavor, does some combination of both. Creationism makes claims that fundamentally can not be observed and it also makes claims that, not being based on factual observation, are overwhelmingly likely to eventually turn out to be wrong.

Informally, the basic rule of science is "go with what you know" (what you can observe) - and Creationism massively violates that rule.

Re:This is not a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278619)

there's nothing to study, creationist would simply reread genesis over and over. Its like if there was a class on Harry Potter, except there's much more material on Harry Potter. Divinity isn't considered a science its a theological degree and its legit because its the study of religion in general. As for your comment on Media Studies... that's a very legit study because there are all kinds of aspects of art within Media and there's interest in how to better use Media. If you'd like to say that creationism is the study of an art ... maybe that wouldd be a legit study, but its DEFINITELY NOT A SCIENCE. Also Genesis is a story whether people want to accept it or not, many major religions recognize that its a story written by an unknown author and its meant to convey a truth about the relationship between man and god, NOT WORD FOR WORD FACT. There for there's very little for creationist to study and there's nothing to legitimately call it a science.

Re:This is not a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278635)

There's nothing in a regular science degree program that requires belief in a creator, non-belief in a creator, or any other kind of religious belief or lack of it. One's religious beliefs are a moot and irrelevant point in a scientific program. You are expected to follow the scientific method, but there's nothing in that method that requires any particular religious belief to be adopted, as indicated by the ENORMOUS diversity of religious beliefs among scientists and students, past and present.

What kind of "science" is it that expects you to choose your religious belief, and offers only one option as the "correct" choice, as a built-in part of the program? Religious belief should be irrelevant because science is neutral on the question. It doesn't even consider the question.

What they are offering is a theology or philosophy program with a minor in science. It makes about as much sense to call it "science" as an automobile mechanic program that also requires the students be trained as pastry chefs, and then granting them a degree in "culinary arts" when they finish.

Now Forrest Gump can get an advance degree..... (0)

rimcrazy (146022) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278297)

Stupid is as stupid does.

Re:Now Forrest Gump can get an advance degree..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278415)

fail

Names Please (3, Interesting)

jmknsd (1184359) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278299)

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.

State accreditation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278307)

How is this worse than any other diploma mill? At least Creationist U. probably has some course requirements (worthless as they may be). State accreditation is pretty meaningless on the whole.

The proof is in the...? (4, Insightful)

Targon (17348) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278321)

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.

Re:The proof is in the...? (4, Insightful)

maraist (68387) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278487)

You're not looking at it through their eyes, and thus you're misrepresenting their motivations.

They're not trying to prove God. They are trying to disprove Atheism. They are as grossly offended by the teaching of Evolution to their children as they would be about condom use, sex education, condoning sex outside of marriage, promotion of interracial relations, public support of planned parenthood, etc.

These are honest points of disagreement (some being more laughable than others).

Thus, teaching Evolution exclusively is essentially forcing their children to admin that the 7-day universe is false - they come home to the parents and pose difficult questions.

By promoting at least one other distinct alternative to evolution, then the parents can successfully say, see, it's only one of several possible theories, so don't worry about it.

It's the exact same process I use to disprove Christianity. If you have 2 or more mutually exclusive descriptions of God's will, then at least one is guaranteed to be at least partialy wrong (and thus not worthy of mindless acceptance), and in the absence of any credible proof of one verses the other, then in all likelihood they are both wrong.. Continue this trend until you've reach every single man made religion, and you've welcomed the world of Agnosticism.

Note I don't believe Atheism is legitimate - because you can't prove the absence of something. But functionally, Agnosticism is equivalent to Atheism. I frown at Dawkins (and others) view that Agnostics are cognitively dissodent. It doesn't serve his cause of winning the hearts and minds of the religious, and is provably incorrect.

Re:The proof is in the...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278661)

I've always taken a slightly different stance on the atheism vs. agnosticism thing. Now, obviously there are atheists who take it too far, but here's the way I see it.

I find that most agnostics I've met don't actually take a neutral or deity-favoring stance; they're just atheists by another name. When one describes oneself as atheist, she isn't saying "There are definitely no gods"; she's saying "There are probably no gods," for anytime someone says anything, there's is an implied possibility of wrongness unless that person is supremely arrogant.

So a lot of agnostics just turn out being atheists who are too timid to admit it.

Matchbook Degrees... (1)

Quantos (1327889) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278333)

Yes, I would like the courses for Pharmaceutical, Locksmithing, Gun Repair...
Oh, and the parole board thinks I should get the degree in Creationism...
That's right, send the material to Rikers...

Re:Matchbook Degrees... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278591)

"Yes, I would like the courses for Pharmaceutical, Locksmithing, Gun Repair...
Oh, and the parole board thinks I should get the degree in Creationism... "

You'll be able break into pharmacies, sort out the drugs you steal, modify weapons, and roll your own cult.

I'm intrigued by your potential and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

I can see money! (5, Insightful)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278343)

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*

Re:I can see money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278387)

Can I buy some shares please?

Re:I can see money! (1)

drewvr6 (1400341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278459)

- "I'm going to open up an Institute of Paranormal Studies in Texas" The money is out there. Or is it "The Truth is Out There." Have you not seen "MonsterQuest" on the History Channel? How about "UFO Hunters"? What about those "ghost hunter" shows on several channels? I'm sure I can find a couple institutions which offer degrees in paranormal studies.

Re:I can see money! (3, Funny)

dcollins (135727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278549)

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!

Dude, you're thinking too small. I want my M.S. in Flying Spaghetti Monster Studies (MSFSMS), and I want it now.

Science? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278361)

Science? Well, it's like science, but not science. Why not take a leaf out of the Sci-Fi channel and call it "Creation Syence".

That should eliminate any possible confusion with actual science.

Re:Science? (1)

DallasMay (1330587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278375)

why did they change their name anyways? SyFy, really?

You guys are missing the point (4, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278365)

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".

Re:You guys are missing the point (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278475)

Creationism is not science, and should not be equated to one.

And "evolution" is science??? Uh.... it's been tested and demonstrated and is reproducible under controlled circumstances? Where? When? By Who? Oh yeah, I forgot... it's a matter of faith! Faith that rejects God is now called Science, where faith that accepts God is quackery. Lots of "open minded" folks here!

Re:You guys are missing the point (3, Informative)

domatic (1128127) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278563)

Try punching "experimental evolution" into Google. That only turns up 25 million hits but here are a few to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution [wikipedia.org]
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ [msu.edu]
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bacteriophage_experimental_evolution [citizendium.org]

It looks to me like these people are doing actual work to justify their conclusions. Now you can dispute their methods and conclusions but what they are up to isn't faith in a religious sense. Sticking lots of exclamation points on astounding ignorance doesn't rescue it from that state.

Re:You guys are missing the point (1)

damienl451 (841528) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278525)

Just so you know, you can get an MS in Philosophy. The University of Utah, for instance, offers this degree.

Re:You guys are missing the point (1)

hardihoot (1044510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278605)

As a Creationist, I have to agree with you: Creationism --the assertion that God, who has always existed and who designed and created all things and all lifeforms, cannot be declared "science" because Creationism cannot be studied. No testing can be performed, and we can only guess how and when the creation event occurred. It is not repeatable as we are not gods. You can call the observation of the creation a science, such as studying plant life, but then you should call it Botany, not Creationism.

All that can be said of Creationism is that it is an explanation as to how matter came into existence and how it was formed into material entities like comets, planets, and living creatures. This explanation declares that the proof for the existence of a creator is the fact that matter exists, and that it is formed into arrangements that could not have come about by mindless random processes.

Trying to claim Creationism as science is the same as claiming Abiogenisis as science. Abiogenisis is a philosophy of origins piggy-backed on the tested, observed, documented, and therefore confirmed fact that over time, some creatures lose/have mutated genetic material which alters the appearance and/or life functions of future generations of that species.

Re:You guys are missing the point (1)

WamBam (1275048) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278607)

It's a deliberate attempt to try to muddy peoples' understanding of science in order to assert a religious and political view. The fact of the matter is that there are many fine degrees with which to study religion, God and creationism. And in a way, all of these degrees can rely on science in terms of how such studies are carried out. It would be hard to carry out any academic studies in any discipline and not follow a rigid method of investigation and conversation. But what this bill and Intelligent design have in common is that they are less an assertion that Creationism is a valid theory, as defined by science, to be pursued by scientific method, but a way to undercut evolution. Intelligent Design was based on a (deliberate) misunderstanding of terms like 'laws' and 'theories'. The thinking was that since evolution was simply a 'theory' it meant that scientists weren't really sure and therefore it opened the door to other explanations of how life came about, one of those explanations being Creationism. Further, Intelligent Designers (is that the correct term?), tried to employ a very basic, flawed scientific method in order to 'prove' that one could carry out experiments that would support Creationism just as much as other experiments and evidence could support evolution. All of was meant to play out in the popular realm, not the scientific community. Again, this was a deliberate attempt to confuse the public about how science functions in order to assert a specific viewpoint rather then trying insert Creationism into a serious, scientific dialog. To me, this is dangerous. I think that many of these fundamentalist religious believers have political aims. They want to insert themselves into every aspect our lives and believe that that science, as they understand it, is a threat to their goals. They know that if they can have 'scientists' teaching their brand of religion - and let's be clear that this is a far more radical view of religion then most - to our kids, then those kids will grow into adults and be more open to their political/religious/moral/social beliefs.

Re:You guys are missing the point (2)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278631)

It is the same reason that makes the advanced degree in Philosophy to be a "Master of Arts", and not "Master of Science".

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by equating philosophy with creationism, since natural philosophy is in many ways the grounding without which science can't exist.

I think the real issue here is that a Bachelor of Science or a Masters of Science should include some scientific investigation and preparation for further scientific work. And this is where the whole "creationism is not science" comes from: there's no scientific work to do in the field of creationism. It's a done deal. You know the answer. God did it.

Even if you believe in Creationism, studying life after creation would just be biology. There is no scientific study into the miraculous instantaneous creation of everything by God. In fact, I would think that expecting to put such a miracle into the realm of "human knowledge" would be considered blasphemous by those who believed those things.

On the other hand, if you don't believe in Creationism, then wouldn't it be nice to say that a bachelor's degree in Creationism is BS?

I am often embarrassed to be a christian. (-1, Troll)

DallasMay (1330587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278369)

I know you know this, but please believe not all Christians are this dumb. Most christians are honest thoughtful individuals who work hard, volunteer, and contribute positively to society. And further, when oil peaks and busts, we'll be happy we still have the Churches out there to help care for the sudden and temporary rush of poverty across the nation. That is what the church is for, helping people who are in need. Not Creationism. And most christians would agree with me.

Let's look on the bright side.... Douchebag U! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278379)

Now let's say Institute for Creation Research gets to give out Masters degrees in "Creation Science", what would then stop us from creating "The Douchebag Univerity of Texas" and give out advance degrees in douchebaggery?

Just think of all the great HONORARY DEGREES you could hand out, starting with the douchebags who proposed and support this legislation!

Disappears in a Poof of Logic. (0)

DallasMay (1330587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278391)

"The Scientific Method is the only way to know anything at all."
"Can you use the Scientific Method to justify that claim?"
"No."
Disappears in a Poof of Logic.

Re:Disappears in a Poof of Logic. (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278533)

I know it was meant as a joke, but I gotta correct you anyway: the answer is actually "yes".

Excellent Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278393)

I think this is great. It'll be so much easier to weed out the idiots when hiring to fill a position for our organization. Anyone who has their degree from this Institute of Creationism listed on their CV will be suitably tcanned.

Speak for yourself (3, Interesting)

smchris (464899) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278395)

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.

WTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278407)

Get these fucking idiots out of our government, please.

Part of the Plan (5, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278411)

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."

Full Metal Achemist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278423)

> want a degree in alchemy?

Some already have that!

Hito wa nanika no gisei nashi ni, nani mo eru koto wa dekinai.
Nanika wo eru tame ni wa, doutou no daika ga hitsuyou ni naru.
Sore ga, renkinjutsu ni okeru touka koukan no gensoku da.
Sono koro, bokura wa sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjiteita.

English translation:

Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return.
To obtain, something of equal value must be lost.
That is Alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange.
In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.

I feel dirty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278461)

My hard earned Masters put in the same bucket as these clowns by some dumbfuck politician... way to go. :(

Giggle... (5, Informative)

flajann (658201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278471)

This gives the rest of the world one more reason to giggle at us. I mean, really.

Re:Giggle... (1)

coretx (529515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278609)

Giggle ? What you say is really true. Once this news hits the european websites, there will be " Only in america " all over the page. Wich is a "standard" reaction/meme on absurd news over here.

Evolution is BS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278501)

As always, and far too often, I am making my regular anti-evolutionary post to a pro-evolution writeup on Slashdot.

The evidence disproving evolution is so strong and conclusive, it is pretty much a proven fact that it is incorrect. The people that try so hard to expose the communistic conspiracy against it are all held as loonies, as the general public have been brainwashed all too well.

The evidence for creationism is strong, and most of the stuff you think you know about it is likely wrong.

See http://www.bcmin.us/main/?q=node/31 [bcmin.us]

Doctorate in Dianetics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278537)

I would be interested in a doctorate in Dianetics or Scientology. After all, it is all based on science. Isn't it?

0_o (1)

coretx (529515) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278539)

I just screamed "WTF" out loud, while i'm alone. I'm trying to describe a emotion here, since words can't possibly describe how insane this is !

Easiest Degree Ever (4, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278555)

Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing. It's a miracle anyone passes!

Science degree for creationism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278593)

That's just oxymoronic!

But seriously, isn't this like getting a medical degree for murder?

non-creationist science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27278597)

I assume that those that are not creationist typically believe in evolution. I do not believe evolution is any more of a science than the study of creation. Evolution is something that many claim takes millions or more of years. If that is the case, how many scientist have lived that long in order to literally observe what happens during that time? Science is based on observation, and we cannot go back and time and observe how things came into being. We can take measurements now and try to infer some properties of what may have happened, but it is not the same thing as observing what actually happened.

Re:non-creationist science (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278639)

Takes millions of years? Than penicillin is just as effective as it was when it was discovered?

As the graduates will soon find out (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278599)

PhD is not equal to "job". No one will hire these clowns, except other clowns. And since everyone hates clowns, grouping them all together is win-win, especially if they all move to Texas.

A lot of Texas residents... (1)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278601)

...are disgusted with this crap. The creationism shit is stirred up by an extreme right-wing group of legislators that don't represent the entire state (but are obviously voted in by some very ignorant Texans). The /. headline makes it appear that we're like...well, like Kansas or something. I'm a high school teacher, and most teachers I know think this creationism movement is a farce.

That said, it's important to understand that the bill is simply working to exempt "private, non-profit educational institutions to be exempt from the board's authority. [foxnews.com] " The Coordinating Board would have the final say in determining whether science courses from this institution would be counted towards teacher certification requirements. At this point, THECB demonstrates no inclination towards allowing this to happen.

This all appears to be a lot of grandstanding by a right-wing nutcase.

My Degree (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278617)

I'll have a MS in suicide bombing with a minor in maximizing civilian casualties.

Pendulum swings, boys!

Finally! (2, Insightful)

ikirudennis (1138621) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278655)

I can now get the degree I've always wanted: a FSM Studies [wikipedia.org] Science Degree
I just loved learning about His Noodly Appendage in high school and I want to pursue a higher education with a focus on Him.

FSM Science (2, Interesting)

neopirate (606861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27278669)

All you nay sayers! Take notice there will be even more REAL scientist with science degrees now! The FSM will show us the way to true science and with it there will be no doubt. Because after all, we will have a degree to prove it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...