Talk:Institute for Creation Research

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silver and gold

Great job, PeterL! I think this is definitely good enough for silver, probably gold as well, so I'll go ahead and set up a little vote. Blue (is useful) 04:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The separate notes/refs sections need to be fixed first. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? Blue (is useful) 04:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not overly happy with the way that turned out, but they do need to be separate I think. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought it strange that we intermix notes and references. Blue (is useful) 04:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just confused on why we need two separate types of footnotes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well one would be for supporting evidence and the other for commentary. Normally our articles toss them both together. Blue (is useful) 04:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried the 'lower-roman' thing here but it didn't work. Did I do something wrong or does it just not work on this wiki? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 07:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a need to differentiate footnotes(commentary) and references(sources). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Article rating?

Silver

• At best. It's not that great, as it is right now. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Gold

• Blue (is useful) 04:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• --Dumpling (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Тy^talk 12:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What it yet needs

While I do appreciate the support for going for Gold immediately after my expansion, there are a few things the article still lacks:

• The history of the Institute - the purge(s) of non-flood supporters etc
• The talks and things that the Institute does in real life, rather than just online
• I believe they at least had a "creation museum" of their own - though it may just be a back room at their offices in Dallas
• The "Some people who have contributed "research"" section could be expanded to include short bios of people we don't have proper articles for, and {{main}}'s for those we do

Additionally, some sections - eg the "K-12 blog," if it continues on it's interesting path - could maybe be taken out and put into their own articles, similarly to what happened to Ray Comfort in the effort to improve that article.

Anyway, that's why I said 'silver' and not 'gold.' It's exam season where I live, so I don't have as much free time as I have had, so I'm not in the position to do quite as much right at this moment - alot of that would require a degree of research beyond the 'just came my way' of the rest. I'll be back... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 22:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I know more can be added to the part of their Bible Apologetics "School", I recently added a part about admission requirements but I am sure I can get more information.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Something that confuses me about the ICR school of Bible Apologetics

Okay I know that TRACS accreditation is not recognized in Texas which is fine but I do not see why they do not seek accreditation through the Distance Education Accreditation Commission or the Association of Biblical Higher Education? I know both are recognized in Texas and both have accredited Young Earth Creationist schools. I remember reading on their site that they cannot be accredited due to their biblical literalist beliefs, to me at least the reason they cannot become accredited is because that their programs are low quality.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

They cannot be accredited by the organizations you cite because they do not meet the minimum requirements for accreditation. I doubt it has anything to do with the "quality" of their programs. More likely it has to do with the ICR's inability to consider any criticism of their core creationist beliefs. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not saying you are wrong (you are right) but why was Cedarville or Liberty University able to get accreditation?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Their failure to obtain accreditation is because they are located in Texas and that state refused to grant them the authority. See this article from 2010: "The Institute for Creation Research is apparently conceding defeat in its lawsuit over the Texas Higher Education Coordinating 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." --Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

An idea I have

Knowing the Creation Wiki has two separate articles for the ICR and its graduate school, why could we not do the same? If a group of laughing joking numb nuts can do it then RW can do it. I implore the other users to consider this idea.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)