ICR School of Biblical Apologetics

ICR Graduate School
City:	Dallas, Texas
Type:	Private
Website:	http://www.icr.edu/

This article or section needs to be rewritten, because:
Outdated information, name change. (Discuss)

The ICR Graduate School is the educational arm of the Institute for Creation Research. It offers M.S. degree programs in the fields of Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education. The ICR Graduate School fosters research and provide graduate-level training in those fields of natural science that are particularly relevant to the study of origins.

Description

The school, originally located in El Cajon and then Santee, California, was until recently accredited by the Trans-national Association of Christian Colleges and Schools through the Federal Department of Education. It is now located in Dallas, Texas, and is seeking formal accreditation from that State's Higher Education Co-ordinating Board. It offers M.S. degree programs in the fields of Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education. Its programs include traditional classroom instruction and distance-learning courses.

History

Founding

ICR founded its graduate school in 1981. The school quickly won accreditation from the California Department of Education and began its course offerings immediately.

Texas Relocation

In 2006, at the original urging of Henry Morris II, ICR's founder, ICR approved and set in motion a plan to relocate most of its operations, including the school, to Texas. ICR's stated reasons for the move are threefold:

1. High cost-of-living in California and especially the cost of housing. Living expenses in northern Texas are much less.
2. Desire for a more-central location with respect to ICR's national and international donor base and speaking engagements.
3. Likelihood of a higher level of community support in northern Texas than in southern California.

Henry Morris passed away in 2006. Beginning in 2007, leadership of the institute and school passed to his two sons, Henry Morris III and John D. Morris.

Controversies

The Graduate School has twice had difficulty in gaining accreditation from administrations hostile to the school's creationist views.

Accreditation in California

Almost from the day that ICR first won its degree-granting authority in California, a number of anticreation groups launched a propaganda campaign to have ICR's accreditation revoked. To accomplish this, the detractors made a number of dubious accusations, which included an allegation that the examining committee that recommended ICR's initial approval was composed of "ringers, shills, and plants."

In 1986 the California legislature changed its accreditation requirements and required all degree-granting institutions to re-apply for accreditation. But in addition to a new law, the California Department of Education had a new superintendent, William Honig. Honig sent a second review committee to the school in 1988. At first this committee voted 3-2 to approve re-accreditation. But Honig wouldn't accept that, and persuaded one member of the committee to change his vote. Bennetta insists that the initial (1981) inspection was a sham, and that at least two of the committeemen who cast the favorable votes in 1988 were, in his words, "ringers"—a charge that Bergman rejects out-of-hand.

In any event, Mr. Honig insisted that any school seeking accreditation in California would teach naturalistic evolution and only naturalistic evolution. ICR offered a compromise of teaching at least as much about the theory of evolution as any secular school would, but this did not satisfy Mr. Honig. Yet another five-member team of site visitors came to the school in August 1989, and they voted four to one to deny the ICR Graduate School the right to operate. Mr. Honig stated as the reason for the denial the continued teaching of creationism at the school.

ICR sued the State in US District Court in 1990 following this announcement. Several members of the California legislature took exception to the State's action and even recommended that several civil-rights organizations formally investigate. In addition, several national and international scientists also voiced disapproval of the decision.

Shortly before the case was to come to trial, the California Department of Education abruptly settled with ICR and the school. The school was now approved to operate without restriction, and indeed the State now paid the school $225,000 US to cover its court costs. The approval was set to expire in 1995, but by then the State had recognized the Trans-national Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS) as a legitimate accrediting agency, and separate State approval was now unnecessary.

Accreditation in Texas

The Texas relocation requires the school once again to seek formal State accreditation, because Texas does not recognize TRACS as an accrediting agency. The school passed one initial site evaluation. Subsequent to this, the Texas Higher Education Co-ordinating Board received 230 e-mails from interested parties. A review of the e-mails by ICR staff reveals that 177 individuals sent e-mails in support of ICR's application, while 36 individuals sent a total of 43 e-mails expressing opposition.

Nevertheless, Commissioner of Higher Education Raymundo Paredes began distancing himself from the ICR application almost at once in his public commentaries. In fact, he convened a separate panel of scientists and science teachers and from them obtained a recommendation against the School. No one from the School was allowed even to make a presentation to this separate panel.

In March 2008, ICR finished furnishing to the THECB a number of requested documents required for regulatory compliance. The THECB set a date to hear ICR's request for April 23–24, 2008.

On April 23, 2008, the THECB's Academic Excellence and Research Committee held an unusual thirty-minute "public hearing" (actually a request-for-public-comment) with ten three-minute slots for interested witnesses. Following that hearing, the AERC voted unanimously to deny the ICR Graduate School's application.

The next day, Commissioner Paredes formally recommended that the full Board deny the application, which the Board promptly did. In the same day, Mr. Joe Stafford, Assistant Commissioner for Academic Affairs and Research, read for the record portions of a Texas statute expressing an objective to "prevent public deception in the face of 'fraudulent' or 'substandard' college and university degrees." As with Mr. Paredes' "separate panel," ICR staff had no opportunity to respond to the obvious implied accusation of fraud that Assistant Commissioner Stafford had just leveled against the School.

As of May 4, 2008, Dr. Morris is considering his options, which include:

1. An administrative appeal.
2. Recasting and resubmitting his proposal.
3. Suing the State of Texas.

In his press release that he issued after the Board's April 24 decision, Dr. Morris called attention to some questionable procedures by Commissioner Paredes, Assistant Commissioner Stafford, the Board, and its committees. As of May 4, 2008, Dr. Morris had not said publicly which of his three options he would pursue. But on May 4 he placed a full-page advertisement in local newspapers all over Texas, calling attention to the THECB action and to the larger issue of whether "all scientists must believe in evolution."