Last week the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board denied an application by the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research (ICR) to offer an accredited Master of Science degree. ICR has responded by calling the decision "a blow to academic freedom."
Personally I don't think you can call yourself a scientist when you don't form hypotheses, collect data, observe evidence, test your hypothesis, and change your conclusions based on what you've learned through experimentation.
As I understand "creation science", the conclusion is already in - God did it. There's nothing to test for, nothing to research or observe, and the biggest impediment to real science - there's no falsifiable theory. The conclusion that God did it is not up for debate. Real science doesn't start with a conclusion and work backwards so it makes total sense that this degree program would be rejected. The Texas Freedom Network sponsored a survey that queried nearly 900 university faculty in Texas. Ninety-five percent of the respondents believed that the degree application should be denied.
Here's a comment from one professor:
Science seeks out truths about the nature of the physical universe. It is all about freedom of inquiry. Creationism claims to already hold the truth, leaving the only role for inquiry that of supporting what is already known. This is not only completely unscientific, it represents a type of narrow fundamentalist thinking (like that which we so strongly oppose in other cultures) that sets the stage for a return to the terrible loss of freedoms suffered by those early scientists who had to sign loyalty oaths, submit their work to religious censors or worse.I'm curious what creationists here think. Do you think your belief system should be an accredited degree program in a science curriculum alongside hard sciences such as biology, geology, chemistry and bio-mechanical engineering?
- Eric Swanson, professor of geology, University of Texas at San Antonio