Texas Court Slams Institute of Creation Research

OUR last post on this topic was ICR’s Texas Litigation Update (21 Aug ’09). You can skip the indented paragraph if you already know about this:

Tthe Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has sued the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. They want the Board to be ordered to give the ICR graduate school a Certificate of Authority to grant Master of Science degrees in Science Education. We’ve written about this a few times. See: ICR v. Paredes: Second Impressions.

All the pleadings in this case are conveniently available at the website of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). You can find them here: Institute for Creation Research Graduate School v. Paredes et al. They’re linked at the bottom of that page.

Today we find that we’ve been totally scooped by the NCSE. Their website carries this most excellent news: A legal defeat for the ICR. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

The Institute for Creation Research suffered a significant legal defeat in its lawsuit over the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board’s 2008 decision to deny the ICR’s request for a state certificate of authority to offer a master’s degree in science education from its graduate school.

The evil Darwinist conspiracy strikes again! Let’s read on:

A June 18, 2010, ruling in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found (PDF, p. 38) that “ICRGS [the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School] has not put forth evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to any claim it brings. Thus, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the totality of ICRGS’s claims against them in this lawsuit.”

Here’s the link in that paragraph: ORDER (it’s a 39-page pdf file).

We haven’t yet digested this news, but we know it’s good. And as we’ve been predicting all along, the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids) have remained aloof from the problems of their fellow creationists. With all the Discoveroids’ resources in Texas (like their control of State Board of Education), they haven’t even mentioned the ICR litigation.

So ICR loses — big time! — and the Discoveroids can claim that no one’s laid a glove on them — but they aren’t fooling anyone.

[Correction: Our title is misleading. It wasn't a Texas court ruling. This was the ruling of a federal court sitting in Austin, Texas.]

[See also: The Meaning of ICR’s Courtroom Defeat.]

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

19 responses to “Texas Court Slams Institute of Creation Research

  1. Tomato Addict

    NCSE writes: The prolix style of the ICR’s initial complaint — which the Dallas Observer (April 20, 2009) quipped “reads kind of like stereo instructions” — was apparently continued in its subsequent documents; the court complained …

    ICR will probably complain there were up against a “monophonic” judge who couldn’t properly understand their arguments.

  2. Tomato Addict says: “The prolix style of the ICR’s initial complaint …”

    I’m up to page 12. The court says:

    It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.

  3. The ICR was all, like, “viewpoint discrimination! viewpoint discrimination!” and the courts were all, like, “WTF?”

    Then they tried, “Candygram!”

    And that didn’t work.

    Finally, they admitted, “Landshark.” but the skit was over.

  4. “I’m only a dolphin, ma’am.”

  5. Get yourself some SNL from the 70′s, Mudge dude!

  6. ICR is defeated!

    WHOOP!!!!

  7. You mean TEXAS gave this ruling? Hell, by the way these morons run the school board I’m as shocked as I am thrilled. I suppose someone in Texas isn’t drinking Perry’s Kool-Aid.

  8. ‘…overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.’ – in other words the same as every other creationist debate, blog, article, response, book, ad infinitum.
    HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaha on them!

  9. I particularly liked this quote from Dr. Gerald Skoog quoted in the decision, that the proposed ICR MSc program “integrates selective scientific data that gives credence to [the framework of Biblical creationism], but ignores, or circumvents, a large body of scientific data that erodes and shatters the foundation of this framework.”

    That sums up the general creationist modus operandi rather nicely, I think.

  10. Ouch… I see the legal system is still no sanctuary for these scoundrels. Though it would have been interesting to see how well a Masters of Science Education degree from the ICR would have actually played out in the real world of science. My guess would be either they would only be accepted in a few predictable places or it would be a “would you like fries with that” degree.

  11. Albanaeon:

    My guess is that it would have resulted in a fair number of ICR-trained creationist science teachers applying for jobs in public schools, which would (I assume) generally require an accredited degree.

  12. Albanaeon says:

    Though it would have been interesting to see how well a Masters of Science Education degree from the ICR would have actually played out in the real world of science.

    It couldn’t have been as useful as a Doctorate in Oogity Boogity from Curmudgeon University, which is recognized everywhere as the epitome of academic creationism accomplishment.

  13. Curmudgeon: “And as we’ve been predicting all along, the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids) have remained aloof from the problems of their fellow creationists. With all the Discoveroids’ resources in Texas (like their control of State Board of Education), they haven’t even mentioned the ICR litigation.”

    I have long noticed the DI’s similar self-imposed gag order on the Freshwater case. So there’s at least two squandered opportunities for the DI to add some substance to their word game that ID is “not creationism.”

  14. Nice to read a bit of good press on Texas for a change.

    On the other hand, I suspect if the ICR had a clue as to how to present it’s case, it might have been approved. We will never know, but had they complied with the court’s request and presented a cogent argument, it might have gone the other way.

  15. If creationists were willing and able to present a cogent argument, would they be creationists?

  16. Ed says:

    We will never know, but had they complied with the court’s request and presented a cogent argument, it might have gone the other way.

    That’s unlikely. The creationists were clumsy, but that isn’t what hurt them. They managed to use all the magic phrases, like “discrimination, free speech, free exercise, equal protection, and due process,” and the judge gave fair consideration to what they were trying to say. Unfortunately, they didn’t use those magic phrases properly because they really aren’t magic. Those words have actual meaning, and they won’t work unless they’re applicable to the facts. The creationists understand law even less than they understand science.

  17. TomS: “If creationists were willing and able to present a cogent argument, would they be creationists?”

    Depends on how you define “creationist.” Before it became generally defined (by critics at least) to mean “anyone who promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution and pretends to have a design-based alternate ‘explanation’,” there were self-described “creationists” like Terry Gray with cogent arguments – against ID and for evolution.

    Now if we can only get the public to use our definition instead of “honest believer in a 6-day creation” the DI won’t get away so often with their bait-and-switch.

  18. Tomato Addict

    Good News: I found a link to the SNL Land Shark skit for Curmie.

    Bad News: You will have to sit through and advertisement first.

    http://www.spike.com/video/land-shark/2802070