The following item, headed "Astrology schools wins
accreditation", appeared in the Akron Beacon Journal of 28 August 2001.
"The Astrological Institute, a modest school in downtown Phoenix
where students learn to write horoscopes and give advice about the
future, has won accreditation from a federally recognized body in what's
believed to be a first for a school of astrology.
The Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of
Technology has certified that the school's teachers are qualified and
that its graduates can be placed in jobs.
The institute where students take courses such as 'master class
on the asteroid goddesses' and 'how to write an astrological column' can
now seek approval from the U.S. Education Department for its students to
get federal grants and loans."
In view of this, and in the spirit of a recent post to this list
saying that ASA should be a "big tent", should people who have degrees
in astrology from an accredited institution and fulfill other criteria
for membership qualify for ASA membership?
"But seriously folks" - that "big tent" appeal was on behalf of
YECs. Yes, a person who believes the universe to be ~6000 years old can
be a member of ASA. The organization is a broad tent in that sense & I
don't suggest that we change that. & yes, a person who believes in the
scientific validity of astrology can also be a member - though I don't
know of any who are. But are we, for that reason, required as
scientists to take seriously the claims of astrology? Of a young earth
view? Is there really any substantive difference?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 02 2001 - 12:14:16 EDT