The Institute for Creation Research's graduate school, which is based in California, has been offering master's degrees since 1981 accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools.
Recently they packed up and moved away from Beverly, Hills that is, to Texas to sweat in upper 90% humidity daily. Unfortunately that decision backfired because they were denied to offer masters degrees.
The hurdle that ICR needed to get over is The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, unfortunately they received a pit bull equivalent of pressure from the yelping hyena atheists of the scientific world to not approve ICR's application to allow the Institute to offer master's degrees in science education in Texas. Apparently, this was the Atheists Alamo. Of course, like most educational institutes in the U.S., those S.A.C.S. of cowardice, caved in to the atheistic pressure and gave a denial to ICR.
It is completely understandable, since other universities all over the planet can certainly offer Master's degrees all day long as long as it is secular, science fiction, and not Creationism.
As an example, Cornell University, a highly accredited university in the atheist friendly state of New York has their Physics department loaded with science fiction teachings.
Wha, wha? Don't worry little birds, I'll feed you.
Cornell University's Physics department has 140 articles on Multiverses. That's right, the fictional postulation of multiple universes (oxymoron?) is being taught, and promoted, in our schools to "explain away" the precession of this finely tuned universe. Currently the most popular of the physics explanations called "string theory" predicts a large number of possible universes.
Multiverses is not science at all because no testable predictions can be made. Its not testable, repeatable, and verifiable. The real kick in the rear is that is what is claimed, by atheists, about Intelligent Design! Are you kidding me? Certainly not a Creator, no way!
Richard Dawkins even maintains that an alien designer or designers are more plausible than a supernatural designer because there is a known mechanism to produce them. He calls it the "crane of natural selection". Creator? Never!
Something that cannot be tolerated. Much like an Ostrage does when frightened, the atheists are scared of that privately funded outcome.
"Are they gone yet?" Never!
bit.ly/sacsof
Dan:
ReplyDeleteYou might want to consult your Latin dictionary (it's a real treasure, you know.) Almus means "kind," not "nourishing."
"Multiverses is not science at all because no testable predictions can be made. Its not testable, repeatable, and verifiable."
Actually, I quite agree with that. It's all speculation.
"The real kick in the rear is that is what is claimed, by atheists, about Intelligent Design!"
Well, take a close look. It's not testable, repeatable, or verifiable.
Alma, fem. of almus "nourishing," from alere "to nourish"
ReplyDeleteActually, arXiv.org is "Open access to 611,619 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics."
ReplyDeleteThese are papers. Mathematical theorizing. The authors don't claim that they have discovered The Final Truth, or even more than The Occasional Accuracy. These are theories, which they've tested out to a certain point. Papers turned in, primarily by students, in the hard sciences.
But see, there's the thing. "Tested out to a certain point." If any of their testable, verifiable steps was to consist of "and God said, let there be light," that would be an epic failure. These aren't courses - they're incomplete hypotheses attempting to explain the nature of the universe.
Look up the definition of "theoretical physics" at some point. It's a different field from what you're trying to promote.
Now, what you want is the Religious Studies section. That's around the corner, third door on the left.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteN.C. (thanks, N.C.) said,
"These are papers. Mathematical theorizing. The authors don't claim that they have discovered The Final Truth, or even more than The Occasional Accuracy. These are theories, which they've tested out to a certain point. Papers turned in, primarily by students, in the hard sciences."
It is embarassing to see you try to discourage people from probing new frontiers in science. You totally miss the point in these published papers. They are not "taught," but used as baselines for future researchers and explorers. That is the nature of science, just as later scientists used Darwins self published book as a basis for further exploration/ research.
You just don't seem to "get it."
Of course, it is obvious that you try to paint everything that you don't agree with in bad light. You offer no refutations or competing postulates. You just whine and complain.
You also fractured the story of why the ICR moved to Texas. Hint- it wasn't to try to offer Masters degrees.
Do you consider Francis Collins a "yelping hyena atheist?"
Nameless Cynic,
ReplyDelete>>These are papers. Mathematical theorizing. The authors don't claim that they have discovered The Final Truth, or even more than The Occasional Accuracy. These are theories, which they've tested out to a certain point. Papers turned in, primarily by students, in the hard sciences.
Don't even try to pretend that this is some student driven "pet" project.
At the Cornell University's hosted "Friends of Astronomy Symposium" the grand finale of the symposium was described as:
The final event of the Symposium was a reception and dinner at the Statler at the end of which Ira Wasserman puzzled us with an entertaing [sic] talk about the laws of physics, string theory and multiverses.
So give us all a break on the intellectual dishonesty that you are spewing. This is the direction they are excited about and heading. Its called science fiction.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Don't even try to pretend that this is some student driven "pet" project."
Ah.....Dan, he did not in any way, shape or form, try to say that. What the hell are you on?
Have you no clue how science is done? Sorry, it's clear that you do not.
Theoretical physics: a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physics in an attempt to explain natural phenomena. Its central core is mathematical physics,[note 1] though other conceptual techniques are also used. The goal is to rationalize, explain and predict physical phenomena. The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it with the very religious, having to have a simple pigeonhole to shove everything? Even the extremely complex things. And when they don't understand it, they want to be able to say "God works in mysterious ways." So when that explanation doesn't fit, they get all shouty and stampy-feet.
It's odd.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"A Creator cannot, and will not, be entertained in any way, in a university setting"
Nameless is right of course, the Religious Studies department does exactly that.
But the real key here is "natural phenomena", as Nameless mentioned when discussing theoretical physics. Religion, and a "supernatural designer", cannot be taken into account by science. Because it's, you know, supernatural.
Hence not science.
Well stated, Oranges.
ReplyDeleteI can anticipate what Dan will say next, as is well described by Professore Stephen Law:
Dan will invoke the veil analogy, which:
"... Suggests that observable, scientifically investigable world is not all there is – there is also some sort of further reality hidden from us, as if behind a veil. Maintain that some of us – those lucky enough to be equipped with the right sort of transcendent faculty or insight – may perhaps obtain glimpses of the mystical reality that lies beyond the veil (and of course it’s terribly important that we listen to these “experts” – psychics, say, or “spiritual” people). Perhaps, even if we are not fortunate enough to be equipped with such a transcendental sense ourselves, we may nevertheless find at least some suggestive clues as to what lies on the other side (at this point, you might wish to reach for a generous helping of supporting anecdotes to bolster your conviction that, say, angels or psychic powers, exist."
Smaoke amd mirrors, Dan. That's all ya got.
And the funny part is, if you ask him to explain why we should believe in God, his answer is that there book-learnin' won't explain it, you just have to believe.
ReplyDeleteSo you can't get God from a knowledge of science, but he insists that you have to jam God into a science course.
I guess it's a one-way door.
What kind of cheese did they have with their whine?
ReplyDelete