The news services have been reasonably quiet about this decision.
So far, almost the only editorial comment I've seen has been from the Austin American Statesman, which wrote:
Dedicated learning in its many forms is generally wonderful. But course work must be labeled correctly. The state is right to require that a graduate degree in creation studies, which the Institute of Creation Research offers, be called what it is - a degree in religion, not science. ... Paredes and the coordinating board took a correct and principled stand in denying the creationist institute’s science course.Meanwhile, the Daily Skiff blog from Texas Christian University reports on the ICR's press release following the decision against them:
The manner in which the hearing was conducted was characterized by viewpoint discrimination.I wonder what "viewpoint discrimination" is. Is it something different than disagreeing?
The Texas Observer noted that there were three people who spoke in favour and seven who opposed it. If there was nobody who spoke in favour, or only one, that might be a stronger case for not having a chance to make the case.
It could also just point out that many people think that the program as proposed is just a bad idea.