So it seems the Creation Research Graduate School wanted to offer a Masters of Science program and have it accredited.
So they decided to set up shop in Texas (moving from California).
So the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which approves curricular programs for accreditation, looked at the CRGS Masters of Science program and said, "Uh, this isn't science. This doesn't meet the standards of science. It certainly doesn't meet the standards of a Masters program in science."
So the Creation Research Graduation School sued the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for, among other things, religious discrimination — which itself kind of underscores the point that they are not a scientific body, and therefore not entitled to have scientific accreditation.
The Texas state court ruled against the Creation Research Graduation School.
Seriously, how far off the reservation do you have to be where even Texas won't buy your snake oil?
By the way, if want to know what a person who has an M.S. in Creation Science writes about, you can read a lot here from Brian Thomas, M.S. [H/T Jesus' General] He writes articles featuring the latest revelations in God science at the site every day… llike…
On proving the age of a 157 year old woman:
If trustworthy documents remain the best means of gleaning the facts of history, then it stands to reason that reliable copies of the documents that were compiled to form the Old Testament can be regarded as far and away more reliable than any "scientific" guesswork about the past.
On the shape of the hammerhead shark:
The fully fitted features of an adult hammerhead shark are so well-constructed that they draw attention to the genius of their Creator. Also, the well-orchestrated capacity to express variations in body and "hammer" length–but in very few other hammerhead traits–draws even more attention to the One "who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein."
On bee landing strategies:
It is thus most reasonable to infer, based on the scientific observation of bee-landing strategies, that this landing program also arose from an intelligent source. This source had to be ingenious enough to have packed this highly effective, and yet elegantly “simple,” information into something as small as a bee brain. Of course, this seems like exactly something that the God of the Bible could have and would have done.
On seals' ability to use their whiskers to follow fish:
However, those supposed first ocean-going mammals would have faced even more serious issues, since their postulated evolutionary ancestor supposedly resembled a cow. Its attempts to swim would have been highly ineffective due to its hoofed feet and bulky body. How could it have caught fish at all without possessing the full suite of traits necessary for swimming and prey detection?
The ease with which evolutionary stories like this can be concocted stands in stark contrast with the difficulties known to exist when engineers seriously attempt to replicate the finely tuned equipment exhibited by marine life, such as sonar or super-sensory seal whiskers. The best explanation for the origin of these complex creatures remains the one presented in Genesis–that on the fifth day of creation, God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life," and it was so.
Now that's science!