Institute for Creation Research sues Texas to offer science degrees

[Questioninggeller]

This is funny.

Last year the Institute for Creation Research was denied permission to offer graduate degrees in science since the program deviates from standard scientific knowledge and practices (ie denying science in favor of religion). Various members of the board said if they offer a Master's degree in Creation that would be okay, but science degrees require the scientific method.

Now the ICR is striking back and suing the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against ICRGS's academic freedom and religious liberties." Here you can read the entire 80-page complaint made in Dallas federal court.

This once again proves creationists simply don't even understand what they are arguing. The Board is preventing them from calling their degrees "science" in the same way all degrees have perimeters to define that topic. These people want to offer science degrees when they don't even know what science is!

From the lawsuit:

Originally Posted by Institute for Creation Research

...
THECB's Commissioner Paredes' unquestioned faith in a "Big Bang" of "14 billion years ago" (which he may believe in by faith, but he has no eye-witness knowledge of such) should not be confused with the "great noise" mentioned in 2nd Peter 3:10. The evolution-only viewpoint discrimination is further illustrated in Commisioner Paredes' opinion (of 4-23-2008) that evolutionary thinking as "foundational" to "modern science."
...

The Dallas Observer commented here.

[X]

Let us know when they get their day in court.

Should be popcorn-worthy.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by X

Let us know when they get their day in court.

Will it really take a full day to tell them how full of crap they are?

[MattusMaximus]

Oh, this is just too good. Got a link on when the state of Texas regained its sanity and turned these loons down?

ETA: Here's more info from the NCSE.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Will it really take a full day to tell them how full of crap they are?

It would take weeks to tell them how full of crap they are.

[jj]

All it takes is a sympathetic judge to decide as a question of FACT that "creationism is science" and they win.

They are not stupid.

They hate science, they hate modern life, they hate our lifestyle, and they would like nothing more than to turn the USA into a variant version of Iran, but they ARE NOT STUPID.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by jj

All it takes is a sympathetic judge to decide as a question of FACT that "creationism is science" and they win.

Nope. At that point the decision is appealed (on "establishment" grounds) and it turns into another Dover Panda's trial. And when an appellate judge overturns the decision, that establishes binding precedent in that circuit.

Frankly, this looks like a very long shot at best.

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by jj

...

They hate science, they hate modern life, they hate our lifestyle, and they would like nothing more than to turn the USA into a variant version of Iran, but they ARE NOT STUPID.

I'm afraid that statement is quite true.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Nope. At that point the decision is appealed (on "establishment" grounds) and it turns into another Dover Panda's trial. And when an appellate judge overturns the decision, that establishes binding precedent in that circuit.

Frankly, this looks like a very long shot at best.

I agree. Not even the current conservative SCOTUS would go along with these wingnuts.

Legally, it's a dead end, but I don't really think that is why the creationists are doing it. They're just trying to make noise and raise some more money from their gullible followers, and I have complete confidence that - for this purpose - it will be a complete success.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I agree. Not even the current conservative SCOTUS would go along with these wingnuts.

Legally, it's a dead end, but I don't really think that is why the creationists are doing it. They're just trying to make noise and raise some more money from their gullible followers, and I have complete confidence that - for this purpose - it will be a complete success.

When they're done spinning it will be the Dawinista establishment using the courts to keep ID out of the classrooms.

Kinda like the Dover Do-over.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Will it really take a full day to tell them how full of crap they are?

I could imagine that it could take several days to fully enumerate how full of crap they are.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by jj

All it takes is a sympathetic judge to decide as a question of FACT that "creationism is science" and they win.

And the supreme court ruled against this already.

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I could imagine that it could take several days to fully enumerate how full of crap they are.

Six days for enumeration and seventh day thrown out.

or

Five days for enum and sixth day for throwing and seventh day would be for rest and small celebration.

[Wowbagger]

Why would they want to offer science degrees, anyway? I thought they thought that science was evil, or something.


At Hogwarts, at least they had the decency to name their classes in Defence Against the Dark Arts.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And the supreme court ruled against this already.

Yeah. Edwards,, IIRC.

The ICR are, in this instance, idiots. They didn't get the memo about "creationism" being a bad word and that the new term is "intelligent design" or "sudden emergence" or whatever the hell new term the Discovery Institute is now pushing. They lost the case in the first paragraph, when they described what they are pushing as "an institutional viewpoint of Biblical or scientific creationism."

They state in paragraph 18 that they are objecting to the characterization of this viewpoint as "fraudulent or substandard," which opens the door to questions of scientific standards (i.e. they admit that the board's action would be proper if scientific content standards do not support creationism).

They also admit to not having exhausted administrative remedies as required by state and federal law.

They're specifically demanding that the government provide special dispensation for "science education" based on Genesis 1:1 (the Biblical citation appears in their complaint), which presents any possibility of arguing from religious neutrality.

My God, I could have written a better complaint by beating on the keyboard with a tennis racket. There is a lawyer who should be disbarred for this.

[mazyloron]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Why would they want to offer science degrees, anyway? I thought they thought that science was evil, or something.

I would guess that they want to be able to put fundamentalists out there with science degrees, to add further credibility to the ID/Creationist movement. Then IDers will have "real scientists" who support their views, and that will make it easier for them to continue the "there's a debate over evolution among scientists" nonsense that they love to spout. ID could point to people with these degrees and say: "look, here's a scientist who agrees with us, therefore we're just as scientifically valid as evolution."
...and then before you know it, we are living in the Dark Ages again, only with guns and explosives.

Or, as stated above, they're just hoping to make some noise, get their supporters all worked up to raise some money, and hopefully gain a few new followers.

I hope they fail in both regards.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Why would they want to offer science degrees, anyway? I

Actually, that's something the OP got (slightly) wrong.

They do not want to offer "science" degrees (albeit the degrees they want to offer are "MS" degrees, i.e. Masters' of Science).

They want to offer MS in "science education"; they are rather specific about this. The argument is because they are not teaching "scientists" but teaching "people who teach scientists."

In their (rather ludicrous) words, the panel is 'confusing the educational purposes of teaching science majors (themselves) to learn their science content, as contrasted with teaching science education majors to effectively teach others about science.' (I will not attempt to reproduce the angry-fruit-salad effect of their numerous font changes throughout.) For this reason, it should not be a problem that their primary texts are creationist undergraduate texts, because "a science textbook can be used for an undergraduate "learner", to simiply learn the science content, -- whereas the same textbook can be used as a "train-the-teacher-to-teach" tool (for teaching graduate students how to efficiently serve as science educators [...])'

Sheer madness. I think we're seeing a major split between the ICR and the DI, in that the ICR are tired of all this pussy-footing around and pretending unsuccessfully to be science and think that they will be more likely to get results through direct, old-fashioned testifying.

Certainly they'll get more money from the gullible this way.

[Dr Adequate]

* buys popcorn *

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Sheer madness. I think we're seeing a major split between the ICR and the DI, in that the ICR are tired of all this pussy-footing around and pretending unsuccessfully to be science and think that they will be more likely to get results through direct, old-fashioned testifying.

Agreed. I've been noticing for some time there had appeared to be a bit of frustration with the Disco Institute from some hard-line fundamentalist creationists because they weren't beating the Bible hard enough. The entire method of being sneaky about pushing ID-creationism (that is, talking about a Designer without mentioning God) is insulting to many of the more hardcore religious believers in creationist circles.

Quote:

Certainly they'll get more money from the gullible this way.

Sad, but true. Someone's going to be lining their coffers

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by jj

... They hate science, they hate modern life, they hate our lifestyle, and they would like nothing more than to turn the USA into a variant version of Iran ....

Hillary Clinton in a burka? I could go along with that.

Originally Posted by jj

... but they ARE NOT STUPID.

Stupid is as stupid does, so they say.

[Questioninggeller]

Steven Schafersman of the Texas Citizens for Science, who has been following this for a long while, has recently wrote:

Originally Posted by Steven Schafersman

ICR claims it “met or exceeded” the 21 Standards of Certificates of Authority. In fact, ICR did not meet several of those standards which was the basis of the THECB’s refusal to grant the Certificate of Authority. Three of those unmet standards were faculty qualifications, the curriculum, and academic freedom of the faculty and students. The standard of judging these things is comparison with other Texas institutions of higher learning that offer the same Master of Science Degree in Science Education. ICR was in no way comparable to other institutions, which was the original THECB justification for denial of the certification. Indeed, ICR compares so unfavorably that in my opinion it would never be able to achieve accreditation from a legitimate accrediting association, and I believe ICR’s plan was to keep renewing its state Certificate of Authority indefinitely (or seek legislative assistance in some fashion.…)

ICR’s claim that it suffers from “anti-accommodational evolution-only-science enforcement policy practices” is frankly absurd. ICR has every right in the world to teach its Creationist pseudoscience to paying students and can continue to do that, so that falsifies its claim of illegal victimization by the State of Texas. It has no right, however, to demand that its graduating students be awarded a Texas-certified Master of Science degree, since under no definition of science or practice of legitimate science education in the United States is ICR’s curriculum “science.”

Full article: "Texas Citizens for Science Claims ICR Has No Valid Legal Justification for Its Litigation"

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by jj

All it takes is a sympathetic judge to decide as a question of FACT that "creationism is science" and they win.

Cheer up. Going to court is a good thing. They will lose miserably at some point in the court hierarchy. The higher up they lose, the better.

Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll lose the original case and then lose all of their appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ugh. I had to start skimming after about 15 pages or so, but the constant refrian of "Paredes religious beliefs of a Big Bang there was no human eyewitness to blah blah" is getting annoying.

eta - Oh Come on! What the hell sort of LAB are they going to do for the LAB courses listed on page 34?

eta2 - I'd like to issue the ICR a writ of ignoramus.

[SezMe]

I would GUESS that the ICR moved from California to Texas in order to get a more favorable ruling. Now it looks like they'll have to move to Alabama where Roy Moore rides the high bench. Sigh.

[Holler Hoojer]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Ugh. I had to start skimming after about 15 pages or so, but the constant refrian of "Paredes religious beliefs of a Big Bang there was no human eyewitness to blah blah" is getting annoying.

eta - Oh Come on! What the hell sort of LAB are they going to do for the LAB courses listed on page 34?

eta2 - I'd like to issue the ICR a writ of ignoramus.

PURPOSE OF LAB: In this lab you will demonstrate there are no old dinosaur bones since these animals can be no more than 4000 years old.

LAB EQUIPMENT: Make certain you wear eye protectors and are not wearing open-toed shoes.

PROCEDURE: Have your lab partner fasten a safety harness on you, adjust it snugly, and slowly lower you into the La Brea tarpit. CAUTION: Do not descend below 40 feet as the Bible tells us bones don't get older as you go deeper.

[Cainkane1]

I don't think this is funny. What if the creationists win? This could sure happen in Texas.

[MattC]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I don't think this is funny. What if the creationists win? This could sure happen in Texas.

I evolve myself out of existence in protest.

~ Matt

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I don't think this is funny. What if the creationists win?

Then it gets appealed to appropriate Federal court (for Texas) and loses on appeal as a clear violation of church/state separation.

Quote:

This could sure happen in Texas.

Happens all the time. That's why appellate courts exist, and why lawyers don't pay attention to court precedents that haven't been vetted by an appellate court.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I don't think this is funny. What if the creationists win? This could sure happen in Texas.

It would move to federal court. I don't think that the Supreme court has moved quite so far as to reverse previous ruleings on creation science.

[Dr Adequate]

Interesting article by a lawyer. I've read some briefs and decisions, so I thought that their argument were batcrap crazy, but I'm glad to hear it confirmed by an expert. Here's what he says:

I am a practicing attorney who specializes in civil litigation (like this) and I have a J.D. from Harvard Law School. I am not admitted in Texas — although I have litigated several matters in that state. So I think I am particularly qualified to weigh in on this lawsuit. Obligatory disclaimer: nothing in this blog post constitutes legal advice or an attorney-client relationship; the opinions I express herein are my own and no one else’s. Now, on to the show:

This lawsuit is gloriously insane. From top to bottom, this is exactly the kind of lawsuit you would expect from the kind of minds who think the world is 6,000 years old. I can only highlight just some of the glaring defects in this bizarre lawsuit.

You can read the whole of his takedown here. Under the title "You Don’t Trust Creationists With Your Science Education ... Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust Their Lawyers, Either".

[Questioninggeller]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Interesting article by a lawyer. I've read some briefs and decisions, so I thought that their argument were batcrap crazy, but I'm glad to hear it confirmed by an expert.
...

Yeah, that's a good link. I liked:

Quote:

You Don’t Trust Creationists With Your Science Education… Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Trust Their Lawyers, Either
04.22.09
...
There are no words to describe the vacuity of this argument. It is so preposterously stupid that I cannot imagine any second-year law student who has paid the slightest bit of attention in his Con Law class at a seventh-rate law school would make it.
...
Here’s the kicker: the ICR nowhere alleges that its advertising is truthful and nonmisleading! ICR doesn’t even claim, on face, to have a First Amendment right worth protecting. (And, of course, they don’t have one in actual fact, either.)
...
When you have an “administrative” remedy, generally, the rule requires you to “exhaust” those remedies before suing someone in federal court. What this means is that before you can sue a government agency, you have to follow the agency’s internal policies and procedures to resolve your grievance in full. If you go through the whole process and they haven’t fixed things, then — and only then — can you sue.
...
This is insane for at least two reasons. First, the statute of limitations begins to run when your cause of action “accrues.” (Statutes of limitations generally exist to prevent you from sitting on your rights for years and then surprising someone way down the line long after the injury occurred.) If you are pursuing an administrative remedy, the law is clear that either a) the cause of action has not yet accrued and/or b) the statute of limitations is equitably tolled during the pendency of the administrative review process. This is common sense: you don’t preclude someone from bringing a claim if they’ve acted consistently with that claim and followed the appropriate procedures.
...
ICR seeks an “injunction” in their Complaint. As the name might suggest, an injunction prohibits someone from doing something. If you are dumping trash on my lawn, for example, I might be able to get an injunction prohibiting you from dumping any more trash on my lawn. Dumping the trash is the behavior I’m seeking to “enjoin” you from doing. But I cannot get an “injunction” requiring you, personally, to go pick up the trash. (I can get damages that will pay for someone to clean up my lawn.) In other words: injunctions force you to not do things, not to affirmatively correct things.
...
I’ve omitted ~100 “factual” paragraphs (because this writeup is already nearing 2,500 words) from the middle because I’m critiquing this from a legal perspective. But rest assured: those paragraphs are equally demented.
...

Link

[Dr Adequate]

I am not at all a lawyer, but if I was a lawyer for the defense, I'd ask for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that the ICR haven't bothered to seek an administrative remedy.

There is much pwnage to be visited on them, but first and foremost they don't seem to be in any position to bring the case in the first place.

As I say, I'm not a lawyer ... but isn't that right?

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I don't think this is funny. What if the creationists win? This could sure happen in Texas.

The worst thing that can happen to them is a victory is Texas.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I don't think this is funny. What if the creationists win? This could sure happen in Texas.

What makes you say that? Are you intimately familiar with the Dallas District courts?

[Questioninggeller]

James J.S. Johnson, who wrote the ICR's lawsuit, also writes for the ICR's publications. He writes some cray stuff as the following article shows:

Quote:

To Tell the Truth: The danger of accommodating Darwinism through false testimony
by James J. S. Johnson, J.D.
Acts & Facts /ICR

...
Do these principles of false testimony apply to the creation-evolution controversy? Quite a bit, actually. In short, false testimony within the church since Darwin's generation has accommodated his materialist challenge to God's role as Creator. The Apostle Paul wrote that God has provided everyone with proof of creation and His creatorship, proof so strong that suppressing it is adjudged inexcusable (Romans 1:19-20, 25, 28).

Historically, false witnesses have enabled Darwinism's monopolization of educational institutions throughout the secular academic world. Worse, many false witnesses have also facilitated the "dumbing down" and Darwinian accommodation of Christian theology in religious circles.

A Pig Is Still a Pig

Sadly, among Christian seminaries, colleges, and even churches, the teaching of Darwinian evolution in any form has historically been welcomed in many ways that dishonor Christ. How so? Recall how Aaron sacrificed truth and dishonored the Lord when he led the rebellious Israelites to worship a golden calf that supposedly "evolved" while Moses was absent.7 Notice that Aaron labeled the "spontaneously-generated" golden calf "the LORD" and not "Baal" in order to excuse the idol's inclusion into Israel's religious practices. Yet a golden calf statue, whether called "Baal" or "the LORD," is still a golden calf statue. A gold-ring-snouted pig is still a pig.

Likewise, any theistic evolutionary explanation for origins--regardless of its label as "progressive creation" or "day-age creation"--is just a nicer name for compromise. Aaron's sin is called syncretism, a blending of pagan religion with biblical religion, which is exactly what theistic evolution is. It is false testimony about God the Creator.
...
Placing Tradition Over the Text

A related type of false witness is the Pharisee-like churchman who adds unbiblical traditions to God's Word (such as the "gap theory") so that the true force of the Bible is nullified (Mark 7:3-13). Unlike the heterodox Samaritans, the Pharisees appeared to be doctrinally "orthodox" in their view of the canon and authority of Scripture. However, as Christ explained, the actual practice of the Pharisees nullified the Bible's text and authority, obscuring biblical truths by illegitimate adherence to their own invented concepts, thus treating Jewish tradition as superior to the Word of God.
...

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

This is funny.

Last year the Institute for Creation Research was denied permission to offer graduate degrees in science since the program deviates from standard scientific knowledge and practices (ie denying science in favor of religion). Various members of the board said if they offer a Master's degree in Creation that would be okay, but science degrees require the scientific method.

Now the ICR is striking back and suing the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for "an unconstitutional and prejudicial burden against ICRGS's academic freedom and religious liberties." Here you can read the entire 80-page complaint made in Dallas federal court.

This once again proves creationists simply don't even understand what they are arguing. The Board is preventing them from calling their degrees "science" in the same way all degrees have perimeters to define that topic. These people want to offer science degrees when they don't even know what science is!

From the lawsuit:



The Dallas Observer commented here.

actually it's dumb, and like so many other thing creation ist the motivation is political, not religious or scientific. Creationism is based on faith, it is NOt empirical, but belief.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

James J.S. Johnson, who wrote the ICR's lawsuit, also writes for the ICR's publications. He writes some crazy stuff as the following article shows:

Here's the ICR's statement via James J.S. Johnson:

Quote:

Censorship in Texas: Fighting Academic and Religious Discrimination
by James J. S. Johnson, J.D.*
Institute for Creation Research


"Stop the presses!" That was one of the effects of the decision of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) in Austin, Texas, on April 24, 2008, when the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (ICRGS) was told that it could not move its 27-year-old Master of Science program to Texas, nor could it recruit students from Texas to apply to its California graduate school. Why? Because ICRGS does not teach science from an evolution-only viewpoint.

Dr. Raymund Paredes, in his official capacity as Texas Commissioner of Higher Education, has assumed and officially favored his personal viewpoint that the Big Bang was an "astonishing event" that "was initiated some 14 billion years ago," and imposed that personally-held belief on a private school. No eyewitness or forensic evidence was presented by Dr. Paredes last April to support his assumption; he relied only on his ardent belief in this theory that is professed by some scientists, but not all.

As a result, college-level science education in Texas is now muzzled by Texas governmental censorship, a situation that interferes with both academic freedom, the right of a school to teach any subject from its own institutional viewpoint; and interstate commerce, the right of a school outside Texas to recruit and teach Texas residents.
...
Will ICR achieve the same type of victory against the THECB? The laws of the United States and of Texas are there to allow it, and the courts have ruled against the THECB in the recent past when it overstepped its authority against three other Christian schools. But as it was with Zerubbabel, only God can give the outcome He deems best for ICR and for its school. And ICR will honor Him regardless of what that outcome is (Daniel 3:16-18).

Expect to see more about ICR in the news as we seek justice. Now is a good time to pray for ICRGS, for due process, and especially for the God-ordained leaders involved in applying the law to the facts that are placed before them (Romans 13:1-7).

There morons don't even know what academic freedom is and believe its censorship to prevent people from issuing garbage as science...

[Brown]

Quote:

In other words: injunctions force you to not do things, not to affirmatively correct things.

From the US Supreme Court case of Nken v. Holder, decided just today:

Quote:

[An injunction] is a means by which a court tells someone what to do or not to do.

I have a few issues with the Supreme Court's analysis in Nken, notably the Court's apparently deliberate effort NOT to discuss or even mention Bush v. Gore, but this thread is not the place.

I have looked over the ICRGS Complaint. It is, as already has been noted, a prolix pile o' crap.

Allow me to make a bold prediction: the Complaint will not be answered, at least not for a while. Instead, there will be one or more motions made in response. A motion to strike under rule 12(f) seems likely:

Quote:

The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act:

(1) on its own; or

(2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 20 days after being served with the pleading.

Other motions are possible, but moving to strike would be a good first step, and many federal judges would be receptive to such a motion here. Such a motion might be combined with a motion for more definite statement, which some federal judges also might find worthwhile. It would not be completely out of the question for a federal judge to insist upon a complete redraft.

It would not be surprising for the federal judge to recommend (but to stop well short of insist upon) that the plaintiff retain counsel better suited to handling such a matter.

Thereafter would follow motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Look also for a motion for sanctions.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Brown

Allow me to make a bold prediction: the Complaint will not be answered, at least not for a while. Instead, there will be one or more motions made in response. A motion to strike under rule 12(f) seems likely:Other motions are possible, but moving to strike would be a good first step, and many federal judges would be receptive to such a motion here.

What would a "motion to strike" accomplish here?

My understanding is that such a motion would merely remove some of the particularly dumb bits of the pleading from the record. But it wouldn't remove the pleading itself.

Is the idea that after the gibberish has been stricken -- struck -- striked -- thing -- the defense points at a sheet of paper with a docket number at the top, lawyers' signatures at the bottom, and otherwise blank and says "there is no claim to answer"? (Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, technically.)

Why couldn't such a motion to dismiss for failure to state be made immediately? What the tactical or strategic advantage.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by jj

All it takes is a sympathetic judge to decide as a question of FACT that "creationism is science" and they win.

They are not stupid.

They hate science, they hate modern life, they hate our lifestyle, and they would like nothing more than to turn the USA into a variant version of Iran, but they ARE NOT STUPID.

At least... not all of them.

Some are breathtakinginly inane, tho.