Yesterday, I posted about a young Earth creationist getting a PhD in geoscience. There has been some misunderstanding about what I said, and what I didn’t say. Some of that is my fault, though some of it isn’t.
First, after reading the comments, I have to admit that I am unsure what can be done about this situation. I agree that a PhD must be granted based on the merits of the research, and not whatever belief system or lack thereof the candidate has. I did say (in the very first line!) that creationists should not get PhDs, and in the context it’s understandable that people thought I meant we simply shouldn’t grant degrees to them. I was going for an overly simplistic line to grab attention, and I shouldn’t have. So then, should we deny a PhD to someone who is a YEC?
In reality the situation is more subtle than that. In that first line, I was assuming — silly me — that an imagined creationist candidate was honest, and open about their belief that the Earth was young before starting the research. If someone like that still proclaimed that same belief, while also turning in a thesis which is based on the Earth being old, then that would be quite the conundrum.
To get a degree, the work does not speak for itself! If it did, then we wouldn’t have PhD defenses. There a reason they are called "defenses", after all. In that case, it is the duty of the committee to grill the candidate and make sure that they understand what they have done in the research (I have harrowing stories about my own grilling, to be sure).
If the candidate parrots the scientific understanding of the situation, and still proclaims themselves to be a YEC, then you really do have a situation. I’ll admit, again, to being unsure what to do in such a case. Perhaps the department at URI should have thought of this before it got so far. Maybe they didn’t know he was a YEC until it was too late. Maybe there was nothing they could have done at all.
In my opinion — and I suspect a lot of scientists would agree — someone who claims to be a YEC simply does not understand anything about science. If you think gravity is caused by pink underground unicorns drawing in golden marshmallows from the ether, then it is very clear that you are not cut out to be a scientist.
In the end, in the very end, getting a PhD is all about understanding the science. It strikes me that if someone doesn’t understand the science, they shouldn’t get the degree.
However, enforcing that can clearly be a problem.
The real problem here is the fact that a YEC gamed the system, purposely. I think this is a major cause of lament by many of the scientists who have posted about this. I stand by my reasoning: Ross lied, through and through, to get a degree. It’s galling, but I cannot see how they could have stopped him. I’m not sure how we can stop the next liar from doing the same thing. Creationists smell a weakness like this and they’ll be all over, sensing their next "wedge". I’m not sure what to do, but I’d like to see the comments for this post sticking to that topic. If you disagree with my premise, please comment on the other post.
Now, on to some of the comments from that last post:
It’s one thing to debunk the moon hoax, but another to argue that those of certain religious beliefs should not be considered for advanced degrees.
It’s not that his belief is religious. It’s that it’s wrong. Demonstrably, completely, 100% wrong. And the only way for Ross to get this PhD granted to him was to lie, repeatedly, about it while writing his thesis (and for the URI committee to let him get away with it).
It is OK, and even encouraged, in science to have dissenting opinions. But that is not what this is about.
Creating a system of PhD “thought-police†is a very steep and slippery slope. Where do you draw the line?
This is perhaps the core of the situation. Imagine a defense where the candidate clearly has no knowledge of the field he is working in. The committee would hand him his head (and certainly not the parchment). Now imagine a candidate who appears to have the knowledge, but extrapolates wildly, making claims totally unsupported by the evidence presented (I in fact knew someone like that when I was in grad school, but he was already a professor at the time). This situation is a bit more subtle, but again it’s within the rights of the committee to tell the candidate to try again at a later date. A candidate who has some incorrect things in the thesis and who may not be able to answer the questions of the committee, but who does understand the basics of the field, may pass (that’s close to my situation, even though I totally freaked during my defense).
So where does the YEC fall? I’m not sure. Discuss.
You seem to have this fixed delusion that all creationists are hypocrites and liars and idiots.
Perhaps I should be more clear. Not all creationists are liars. They are all certainly wrong, but not necessarily liars. The ones I actively fight against are the ones who do indeed lie, twist the truth, distort reality, for their own ends. It’s much like the Moon Hoax: I don’t fight the audience, I fight the promulgator. In this case, the candidate was at least a hypocrite, and I think worse than that.
He goes on:
You may deny this, but it’s written all over your blog! Half the time all you do is complain about Christians and saying how stupid they are!
I don’t complain about Christians. I complain about creationists. As I have written, many times, it’s the mainstream Christians who should be speaking out the most loudly about creationism. It’s giving their religion a very bad name. You are conflating my fight against creationism with a fight against religion at large. Where have I said, ever, that Christians are bad?
Is Dr. Ross intellectually dishonest? Almost certainly. Is Dr. Ross academically dishonest? I don’t know that he is.
That again is the heart of this.
This is a very dangerous time for science, and for people who try to base their lives on reality. I hope that this case does not turn into Fort Sumter, but I’m also just as sure this won’t be the last anti-scientific poseur to get through academia.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
This still raises some fairly interesting philosophical questions.
YEC’s may be the most prominent annoyance- but really, anyone who takes the Bible (or any other religious text) seriously is going to be in profound disagreement with science.
There is no way science and religion can be reconciled. Creationism is only one example of this. Another example might be the resurrection.
Should anyone who believes in the resurrection be denied a medical degree? What’s the difference, if any between that and the above case?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
The difference, Christian would be if one wrote their dissertation on the impossibility of the resurrection knowing they did not believe their own paper. You don’t do medical research, report the results, draw conclusions all the while secretly believing your conclusions were wrong.
If you did, then what would you do when you were called upon to implement some medical treatment based on the results of the research you didn’t believe was correct? Tell your patient you think prayer is a better option?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Maybe that’s an ironic mirrored situation when compared to ancient times when real scientists had to lie and pretend they did believe the Earth was the center of the universe to get a degree in a European university.
If Dr Ross had gone on to teach at Berkeley, still using the billion-year-old Earth as a working hypothesis for all of his research and all his students, we might just have said that the guy has a split personality — and it could have been all right.
But obviously Dr Ross is not here to do science. He will not be much of a threat to the scientific community, I cannot imagine his papers finding their way through any sort of peer-review now. He went through this to obtain credentials so he could preach his version to a very special university. I do not think he will fool anybody unwilling to be fooled in the first place. Maybe this whole thing is just a localized parenthesis in science, just as soviet biology once was: creationist ’scientists’ will be just as handicapped as Lysenkoist biologists once were — they could not exit the party line and were thus condemned to scientific failure.
I still cannot understand why so many christians have to take the scripture literally. I mean I am one (albeit a very mild version of one), and I am content with stating that maybe God created quarks hoping they would result in genes and evolution so that nature would be an interesting system to watch without having to do all the tedious designer work himself (I mean, isn’t that what I do when I use genetic algorithms to solve an optimization problem?
And in any case, there is no way to know: all we can do is believe, and keep our claims sufficiently modest that we fit Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping ministeria arguments, and not step onto Dr Plait’s flower beds, or else he’ll be sending Richard Dawkins to put us back in our place.
Sorry for raving on. Keep fighting bigotry.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
I guess I see three different aspects of this: What a PhD is interpreted to mean, what it really is, and what is done with it.
A PhD means, quite simply, that a body of work passed a review board, and it reflects only the standards of the review board.
We have a tendency to believe (and “believe” is perhaps a very good word here) that a PhD means the holder is a reputable source of knowledge, and often on a very broad range of topics. It is an esteemed position, though the level of esteem does vary according to how much someone understands the education system.
And then there’s the idea of, what is being done with the PhD. Research? Well, that almost always gets into the peer review realm, and that’s usually (sometimes?) enough to weed out the ones who got past a review board when perhaps they shouldn’t have.
Teaching? That’s another matter. Colleges typically have a system wherein their professors do indeed have to participate in that peer review process, but this is not a definite rule, nor required for virtually any other teaching position. It would be great if the people who had the responsibility for education also had a strict structure of ensuring that the teachers they hired maintained a good standard, but this often is not the case.
If we believe that a PhD title means, “I will use good method and teach others in it as well,” that’s where our problem lies. It does not mean this at all, and the process of determining that it does is flawed. I have known several doctors I wouldn’t lend my car to, and a few on the PhD track that could not demonstrate sound logical processes, but they were good at parroting back everything they had been instructed.
I think this case is actually a good thing, in that it throws some of the problems within the education system into sharp relief. A PhD is evidence of hard work, but not evidence of sound science. It’s a shame, but it would appear to be grim reality.
Was the review board lax? I personally find this debateable, since the candidate demonstrated everything within their criteria. Should they have different standards? Almost definitely, though setting them would not be an undertaking I’d want to have thrust upon me, since it really does have the smell of “mind police” in it.
Should we be working to ensure that a PhD means what it is perceived to mean, and what many people take it to mean? Or do we need to ensure that common perception takes into account what the process really is, and what the limitations of a PhD title really are? Tough question.
The guy is teaching at Liberty University, which is about the only place in the world he could get his belief system accepted. I’m not worried about that myself, but I also know what Liberty University is. If others don’t, that’s a different problem. Any papers he publishes still need to be held to the standards of good science, so I see this as more of a “public perception” thing than an impact on science. Let’s face it, a lot of quite prominent universities give out “honorary degrees,” and this says nothing of diploma mills. It should be the goal of the general public to operate under a strict “Let the buyer beware” mindset until things are greatly improved.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:17 am
I remember once reading a sociological study of advanced degree holders in science who were fundamentalists. What this study showed was a chasm between those in the “pure” sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology and those who were in “applied” sciences such as engineering and computer science. Fundamentalists generally avoided the former and flourished in the latter. Why? Because they did not have to commit to the underlying truth claims of the sciences involved. They only needed to “follow the formulas” in order to achieve certain ends (think Ptolemaic astronomers who could achieve worthwhile observational results without challenging a geocentric universe).
If you think about it, this makes sense. For a fundamentalist, reality is about rules set down by God, both moral and natural. You learn the rules, you learn the code, you produce results.
That said, geoscience seems like a “pure” enough science that some sort of intellectual dishonesty or disassociation would seem to be required for a creationist to get such a degree.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:30 am
“If you think gravity is caused by pink underground unicorns drawing in golden marshmallows from the ether, then it is very clear that you are not cut out to be a scientist”
But does it disqualify me from being a YEC?
(For anyone that’s had a total humourectomy recently, that was a joke)
February 21st, 2007 at 12:49 am
Skeptigirl
I agree.
The test is whether you believe your own work to be false or not.
It’s possible for someone to believe in lots of weird things- but to know that their thesis on (e.g.) gravitational interaction between galaxies is true to the best of their knowledge.
To knowingly write things that you believe not to be true (to the best of your knowledge) is fraudulent.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:25 am
I like how Gould put it – you don’t read the Bible to learn natural history. But in the same context, you don’t derive your morality from science. Does it make sense that a creationist would obtain such a degree? No, but the notion that we should censor those with unpopular opinons is similar to the calls in the UK for criminalizing minority views on Global Warming. Both are illiberal and dangerous.
More to the point, many atheists (myself included) tire of the non-stop attacks on religion from many in the “science” community. It’s replaced science and politics as the focus. Darwin (and other scientists) rejected such a Crusade as not only harmful to science but scientifically irrelevant. I feel no need to proselytize to the rest of the world.
Love your site
AR
February 21st, 2007 at 1:34 am
“As I have written, many times, it’s the mainstream Christians who should be speaking out the most loudly about creationism. It’s giving their religion a very bad name.”
Sad but true. Christianity is Christianity’s worst enemy.
Christian Burnham:
“There is no way science and religion can be reconciled.”
If you’re saying a religious person by definition cannot be a (good) scientist, you’re missing the point. Even an atheist is a religious person of sorts, in the sense that he or she seriously “believes” that God does not exist. Georges Lemaître was a cosmologist AND a catholic priest. He never let his religious beliefs stand in the way of his science.
The way some atheists claim their beliefs to be the only religion compatible with science is IMO just as bad as the moronic convictions of the creationists.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:53 am
Johan,
I get very tired of repeating this point.
Atheism is not a belief.
I do not believe in supernatural events that break the laws of physics unless I am presented with overwhelming evidence that they actually occurred.
No faith is involved.
Let’s imagine you tell me that there is a magic wishing well in your garden that will grant me 3 wishes – but only if I pay you a 100 dollar entrance fee. Your claim would be so extraordinary that I would require proof of the well’s existence and its ability- before I paid you the money.
If you did not provide proof then I would be justified in thinking you were making things up.
Again- no faith involved!
February 21st, 2007 at 2:02 am
And OK- it’s possible that one can be a devoted Christian/Hindu/Muslim and a good scientist.
It’s just unlikely, in the same way that people who take horoscopes seriously don’t in general make great astronomers.
We now know enough about how the world works that we can safely say that the Bible cannot be true- or else our laws of physics biology and chemistry would have to be rewritten from page one.
Again- anyone who knows anything about biology could not accept the virgin birth, or the resurrection as legitimate possibilities. There are many other examples.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:18 am
Christian (what’s in a name ?),
I’m very much aware of the fact that atheists (and agnostics) do not regard their belief(s) to be a religion.
I won’t start an endless dispute over the semantics of the word “religion”. I can only refer you to this site http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm
BTW, that site is all about tolerance. Surely, we cannot be against that ?
Regards
February 21st, 2007 at 2:23 am
What JustAl said.
I point out to people all the time that my PhD means nothing except that I made a contribution to scientific knowledge. It doesn’t mean I’m a good teacher, it doesn’t mean I’m smarter than everyone who doesn’t have a PhD, and it doesn’t mean that I’ll never have a wacky idea that’s just plain wrong.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:43 am
To be awarded a PhD one needs to demonstrate understanding of the widely accepted views, and probably at least be familiar with the minority views, and be able to work within the widely accepted paradigm. One needn’t believe it. All science is tentative and anyone who doesn’t know that probably shouldn’t be awarded a PhD. I take it you don’t have one.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:45 am
How about reversing this with someone doing an anthropology phd into say tribal beliefs of a group of indigionous peoples say.
They need to demonstrate that they understand how the belief system is constructed, how it works how cerominies are conducted etc.
Now this anthropology student is an athiest. Should they be disqualified, because although they have demonstrated an understanding of what a system says and predicts, they are not true believers in those tribal beliefs?
February 21st, 2007 at 2:55 am
Johan:
If you are to regard the absence of my belief in a supernatural God as ‘religion’ then that’s fine.
But that means I’m also ‘religious’ about every other thing I don’t believe in- such as fairies, trolls and Harry Potter.
Not believing in a God doesn’t define me. I’m not even particularly interested in it. There are an infinite number of things I don’t believe in- and I don’t spend my time dwelling on the non-existance of billions of fantastical beings.
Another example. There really isn’t any meaningful equivalence between believing in Batman and believing that he’s a work of fiction based on a fantastic amount of easily available evidence.
So it is with the Bible.
BTW- I respectfully disagree with the BA here. There’s nothing wrong with dismissing all Christians as deluded in their supernatural beliefs- which they are. (I don’t know if the BA believes that- but I hope he does!)
I do know that the BA is a decent, polite and tolerant blogger, who really goes out of his way not to offend. But sometimes I wonder if he’s not a little too nice when it comes to religionists.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:00 am
Sticks-
You don’t have to believe that Harry Potter is real to write a paper about one of the books.
Similarly- anthropology students don’t have to believe in the customs of whatever tribe they are studying.
It’s called knowing ‘truth’ from ‘fiction’!
In fact- if an anthropology student really did believe in all the made-up Gods and superstitions that (s)he encountered, I would seriously doubt that s(he) would make much progress.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:28 am
I think JustAl makes a very good point about how we view people with PhD after their name. Buyer beware indeed. It also reminds me of that Bulls Hit
episode when they pointed out the degrees held by two individuals and how they respected the one who did NOT call himself Dr a lot more than the one who did.
Christian Burnham said “There is no way science and religion can be reconciled.†I think we’re running into another narrow definition of religion which really means Christianity and the like. OTOH I agree with most of your last post. It really is very silly to define someone by the mythology and fantasy which they perfectly reasonably aren’t willing to accept as real on blind faith.
Johan Couder said “that site is all about tolerance. Surely, we cannot be against that ?” Tolerance means we allow people to do and believe things that we think are wrong or stupid without persecuting them. Despite what the PC brigade would us to think, it does NOT mean we have to respect their believes or pretend that we think they’re valid. BTW I extend the same definition to the Christians who think homosexuality is wrong. As long as they don’t do any harm to gays then they should be allowed to disapprove. Meanwhile, I don’t go around beating up YECs but I can say that they’re bunch of deluded fruitbats with the reasoning capacity of a small patch of lichen.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:30 am
Hang on, Chris, your last but one post. You went and posted again while I was writting!
February 21st, 2007 at 4:16 am
Christian:
“If you are to regard the absence of my belief in a supernatural God as ‘religion’ then that’s fine.”
I’m only using this site’s http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm
definition of a religion. Since you obviously didn’t bother to read it, here it goes:
“Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.”
(A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.) Thus we would consider Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Native American Spirituality, and Neopaganism to be religions. We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as religions, because they also contain a “belief about deity” — their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist. ”
As far as definitions go, that one sounds very reasonable to me.
Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Planck, and many others all believed in some sort of deity. Even Einstein, when asked, “Do you believe in God?”, sometimes replied “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all being, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” Newton was in fact an Arian, in other words a Christian heretic who didn’t believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, but he was still a Christian nonetheless.
I don’t think these great minds were “faking it”. All I’m saying is that being religious (in the very broadest sense possible) doesn’t automatically mean one can not be good scientist. I think I just proved that by counter example.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:45 am
From “The Incredibles”
ElastiGirl (”Mom”): Everybody’s special!
Dash: That’s just another way of saying ‘Nobody is!’
If everything is a religion, then the very term “religion” means nothing.
Furthermore, I don’t see how semantic arguments bring anything to the current debate.
Nobody is saying that Christians can’t be scientists, so please put this ridiculous strawman to rest.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:52 am
This kind of problem (a “religious” person earning a PhD in science) and ensuing discussion is typical of the American mindset, which on the other hand prints “In God We Trust” on money. The poor guy lost all credibility in the scientific community and ridiculed himself. Leave him alone.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:55 am
Ruth:
“I don’t go around beating up YECs but I can say that they’re bunch of deluded fruitbats with the reasoning capacity of a small patch of lichen.”
Since it would appear that lichens can survive unprotected in space, you’ll have a tough time getting rid of them
February 21st, 2007 at 4:58 am
Yes, lichen, cockroaches and the plague are all rather hard to get rid of.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:00 am
I wish I could remember who said it, but “Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
February 21st, 2007 at 5:06 am
I agree that as long as someone is capable of doing the job, their religious convictions shouldn’t matter as long as they don’t interfere with it. However, this is a classic from DaveScot:
“To be awarded a PhD one needs to demonstrate understanding of the widely accepted views, and probably at least be familiar with the minority views, and be able to work within the widely accepted paradigm. One needn’t believe it. All science is tentative and anyone who doesn’t know that probably shouldn’t be awarded a PhD. I take it you don’t have one.”
I hope you remember this comment if you ever decide to use Marcus Ross’s name to give credence to (the fallacy that is) ID, since the point that many people are making here is that he’s had to compartmentalize his beliefs away from science in order to get his PhD.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:10 am
Stuart:
“Nobody is saying that Christians can’t be scientists, so please put this ridiculous strawman to rest.”
a) now you’re calling Christian nobody
b) you’re reducing religious to Christian, excluding two thirds of religious people that aren’t Christian
c) nobody said “everything is religion”, except you (but perhaps you’re nobody ?)
As for the relevance of semantics: the way your reaction completely and utterly misinterprets everything I’m trying to say just shows how important semantics are
February 21st, 2007 at 5:11 am
Great discussions here. The first post bothered me along the lines of the “thought police”, etc., but I didn’t have anything really constructive to say.
Remember that many of the early scientists mentioned were religious, and their research was looking for a universal harmony in how things worked that would prove the existence of a diety.
Also, chalk me up as someone who finds shouting (whether emotional or attempting to be logical) about any particular world view (Christianity, Islam, Athiesm, etc) annoying.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:23 am
“I don’t think these great minds were “faking itâ€. All I’m saying is that being religious (in the very broadest sense possible) doesn’t automatically mean one can not be good scientist. I think I just proved that by counter example.”
You are right, and I am about to become another “counter example”. I am studying physics for 1,5 years and my interests are astrophysics and the physics of nucleii, let me call them the fundamental parts of physics. But I also believe in (a christian) god giving me “hold and strength”. Science does not rule out a god even if it seems that the bible is “wrong”. But I think taking the bible literally is not what is needed to believe in it. I think we should look in the message behind it to understand it, but that’s just my view and many do not think the way (YEC’s for example).
And if you want it or not, there is no living without god/religion. You can negate it but all our laws and “views of life” are related to the bible (maybe the Koran, depend on where you live in the world, or maybe other “religious” textbooks). Most laws are buildt upon The Ten Commandments (”do not murder”, sounds familiar, does it?).
But, well, back to topic:
To deprive someone his well earned degree, because his “believes” aren’t the way you want them to be, is nothing but unjustified if the person made a scientific work in the ways everyone does it to get that degree. I can write a work about “dark energy” and I find that it maybe works but I can still think that “dark energy” must be replaced. Well, all right, I have to admit that “dark energy” is less proven (is it at all?) than the age of the earth but I think it’s more or less the same.
And talking about truth is always a bit precariously, isn’t it? About 120years ago it was “true” that there is not much left to find in physics, so it was told to Max Planck that he should not study it. Well, we all know what happend. Max Planck invented the number h (it was really an invention. It was Einstein who found the whole possibilities in it) and nearly everything had to be reconsidered. (Well again, it is something like “true” that the earth is older than 6000years, but I think you get the point)
February 21st, 2007 at 5:25 am
In another 15 seconds I am going to so lose my temper with Johan Couder that I will break the strict rules of decorum here.
Thus I concede: Johan is a better debater than I.
But I’m still right.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:31 am
Stuart:
“But I’m still right. ”
but of course you are
February 21st, 2007 at 5:44 am
Johan Couder Says: February 21st, 2007 at 2:18 am
“I’m very much aware of the fact that atheists (and agnostics) do not regard their belief(s) to be a religion.”
As an Atheist, I do not have any “beliefs”! If there was any deity, supernatural or otherwise, I would not be an Atheist!!!!
Johan: I’m only using this site’s http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm
definition of a religion. Since you obviously didn’t bother to read it, here it goes:
“Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.â€
Again, Johan and those of similar ilk: you all tend to forget or ignore the historical facts that there was never just a monotheistic (a one, true Lord God of…) deity that all tribes worshipped since the Neolithic Age or the past 40,000 years! There has been hundreds, if not thousands, of different deities imagined, created, ansd worshipped. Just check Greek, Roman, Egyptian (the core of Judaism, Christianity and Islam evolved from Ancient Egyptian religions (just check their “Book of the Dead”) Egypt, Assyrian, Sumerian, etc, mythologies.
The monotheistic deity worship in the 21st Century is still a mythology of a created and imagained god (trinity).
But, alas, this blog message will not convince those unconvinceable because they can never be persuaded of the obvious irrationality of faith beliefs in imaginary gods.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:45 am
Johan:
Your point about atheism being a religion has been refuted both logically and empirically. Just because some website disagrees doesn’t make it so. One of my favorite points about this is that atheists only believe in one fewer god than Christians do. We don’t call Christians religious because they don’t believe in Thor, or Loki, or Zeus; we call them religious because of what they DO believe, not what they DON’T believe.
Providing examples of scientists who believed in a god (the Christian or otherwise) doesn’t refute what Christian Burnham said at all:
“We now know enough about how the world works that we can safely say that the Bible cannot be true- or else our laws of physics biology and chemistry would have to be rewritten from page one.”
Biblical literalism involves believing that the Bible is the infallible word of a god, not a general feeling of harmony with creation like Einstein felt. If you hold the belief that everything in the Bible is true, then either you don’t have access to scientific findings of the last century or you don’t care. Either way, you’re not a scientist.
With regards to the question that BA asked: I believe that if someone makes public statements denying the basic premises of their doctoral thesis, and still submits the thesis, then they are guilty of fraud. Ross made such statements at the time (the NYT article references a DVD) and has made such statements since. He even was quoted in the article as saying, “I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates.â€
In the case of fraud, whether they found out about it at the time or later, the university should be able to withdraw their endorsement of his degree, just as if they found out he had plagiarized the whole thing. However, it doesn’t sound like URI wants to withdraw their endorsement; sadly enough, they’re supporting it.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:49 am
Back to the original blog by Phil.
By getting his PhD even for Liberty U, it allows the YECs and IDers to claim that another PhD scientist supports YEC and/or ID.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:50 am
Thanks, darius!
February 21st, 2007 at 6:06 am
Johan
As an atheist I have no beliefs in any of the alleged deities.
You define religion as “any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.â€
Now, I perform no rituals in respect of any of the alleged deities, my code of ethics has nothing to do with any of the alleged deities, as far as my philosophy of life is concerned with regards to any of the alleged deities it is that the allegation of the existence of deities is completely irrelevant to me and as for my worldview, that is what I have when I open my eyes, and I don’t see any damned deity or any evidence for one. Exactly how does all of that make my atheism a religion?
I have no belief in any alleged deities, I do not believe that they don’t exist, I simply have no belief. That is a very long way from the ’specific system of belief’ that your definition of religion requires.
What I do believe, amongst other things, is that religions are nice comforting stories that help some human beings cope with the fact that they know they are going to die. I am already comfortable with that thought and have no need of a mythical crutch.
As for your link to ReligiousTolerence.org, that appears to be a site dedicated to getting theists to cope with the fact that all the religions are incompatible with each other. What is the point of a christian being tolerant of a muslim, as each believes the other is going to burn in hell. What a waste of time.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:07 am
Chet Twarog Said:
If/when the YECs/IDers do this, then they would only expose Mr. Ross as the lying hypocrite that he is.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:10 am
…it allows the YECs and IDers to claim that another PhD scientist supports YEC and/or ID.
This is Chet’s post I was commenting on in my last post…for some reason it didn’t appear…
February 21st, 2007 at 6:14 am
Chet Twarog and Darius:
I (and others of my ilk – huh ?) never said I was a Christian, let alone religious (when or where did I say that ?). And I’m in complete agreement with BA: all those taking the Bible (or other religious books) literally are not doing Christianity (or any other religion) a favor, on the contrary.
But you’re right: we should stick to the original blog. Does it matter what Ross believes ? If he starts writing articles based on scientific nonsense, what kind of journal will accept those papers ? What (serious) university or college will hire (or keep) him ? I will keep repeating this on an on and on: in science it’s the results that matter (not the system of beliefs adhered to by the scientist).
February 21st, 2007 at 6:21 am
Johan,
First off, I never said nor implied that you were a Christian.
Regardless, I don’t think you’re quite getting the point. He submitted his doctoral thesis while stating he believed it was false. The results matter, yes; but so do the methods. If you sincerely believe that what you’re doing is completely wrong, then submit it to be published, you are committing fraud. That’s what this is about: fraud. Ross fraudulently obtained his PhD, and it should be stripped from him.
If he did valid research, but denies its validity, then someone else should repeat the research to make sure it was done properly. Clearly he is not someone to be trusted; and if he is not, then his results are not to be trusted, either.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:27 am
Johan, you are damn right! Period!
February 21st, 2007 at 6:49 am
There’s no requirement to state your religion when going through school. If there were, the creationists seeking to do this sort of thing would simply not state their religious beliefs until the degree is obtained – problem solved. Hopefully most who make it as far as Ross will have a change of belief with regards to the age of the Earth (or evolution).
February 21st, 2007 at 7:16 am
My apologies to you, Johan, and thanks for correcting me.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:21 am
How do people form their world views? usually from multiple sources, experience, research, and to some degree no matter how much we fight it what we hear. It is given that paradoxes will arise. Are they solvable? how will we handle them? When they affect more than one strongly held belief then the effect of living with them becomes pronounced. Some people deal with it by ignoring it or not addressing any area that deals with the conflict. Some basically live a sort of psuedo dual life where they hold both contradictions equally, you might call this being a hypocrite or a liar, kind of like in our current issue at hand. Oftentimes this is only a temporary state, maybe it could be considered that the person isn’t sure yet what they really believe or are awaiting more evidence… Before anyone jumps me for making excuses for this person I will say that being able to write a doctoral thesis while holding such a contradiction that applies specifically to that thesis is bizarre and brings up a lot of questions. The desired end result is to resolve conflicting beliefs and to move to a higher more accurate world view, eliminating unexplainable paradoxes.
Saying a critter lived on the earth in a time before the earth was made is a paradox, and no small one at that. I would really be interested to know how exactly the person who got that degree would answer that question.
And as a side note, for those who believe that only natural explanations can exist, please be careful that those suppositions don’t taint your ability to look critically upon the universe. This leads some people to take a natural solution no matter how absurd, irrational, or improbable because of the supposition that being natural makes it superior above all else… thus making any proof of anything outside of natural impossible. This is just an overall exhortation for all of us to be aware of our presuppositions.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:27 am
I’m going to step back for a moment and ask a broader question: is it possible for a YEC who has studied geology to the PhD level to be a good scientist?
I suggest the following definition for good scientist. A good scientist is an individual who:
1. engages or has engaged in research in at least one field according to the scientific method
2. realizes that every statement ever made comes with error bars
3. tries to discover where those error bars lie for every statement of personal relevance or interest
4. refuses to make or accept a statement whose error bars are either unknown or too broad
It is ok to hold mutually contradictory statements for further consideration. It is not ok to accept both simultaneously, and it is not ok to accept either if you are aware of strong opposing evidence. If the student in question was being honest, he is not a good scientist for this reason, and no YEC can be (without, at minimum, a solid and consistent explanation that reconciles the physical data to his creationism; this explanation seems not to exist).
If the student was being dishonest, he is not a good scientist for violating condition 4, above: lying is explicitly making a statement you believe to have broad error bars (to say the least).
It is implied that a PhD should only be awarded to good scientists. I personally believe it should be a requirement, and thus that no YEC should be awarded a degree in geology. I expect, though, that others will disagree with my definition, or the assertion that a student must be a good scientist to qualify for a PhD.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:32 am
…their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God…
As far as definitions go, that one sounds very reasonable to me.
As far as definitions go, that one sounds utterly incoherent.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:40 am
The real issue here is one of trust: Can we actually trust any future research that Dr. Ross produces? He has already demonstrated that he will present materials for publishing that he does not believe in, so the question is if he can maintain scientific integrity despite his beliefs. As long as he will allow himself to be lead by the data rather than his beliefs, I’d say he should keep his title.
As for the rest of the debate, it’s all about the difference between saying “I have found nothing making me believe in a god” and saying “there is no god, period”. The first is merely pragmatism, the second is saying you have proof of a negative.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:42 am
Atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair color.
Are these guys simply incapable of basic comprehension?
February 21st, 2007 at 7:46 am
darius
“That’s what this is about: fraud. Ross fraudulently obtained his PhD, and it should be stripped from him.”
I’m not siding with Johan here (atheism=religion? Riight), but I have to disagree with this point. If he performs a scientific job and gets good results, then his religious opinions shouldn’t matter. If his work is shoddy, then that in itself will soon become apparent and he will get sacked (or called up on it by fellow scientists).
No doubt he will probably voice his opinions and engage in some religious apologetics and if he (or anyone else) tries to use his credentials to give validity to creationism/ID(iocy), then those statements should be slaughtered appropriately.
p.s. DrFlimmer:
“Johan, you are damn right! Period!”
Great argument Doc! You’ve got me convinced!
p.p.s. DaveScot: Maybe Ross could go on your “Dissenters from Darwinism” list.
(snicker, giggle)
February 21st, 2007 at 7:48 am
I was under the impression that “fraud” wad defined very differently from what people here seem to be implying, that is: publishing something that is FACT as FACT, even though you believe it to be FICTION is FRAUD.
I always thought that fraud was publishing or claiming something to be FACT that is FICTION when you know it is FICTION.
Ross published his thesis, which was compiled based (I assume) on facts, and in publishing it was claiming it as fact, even though he seemed to believe it was fiction. Just because he believed it was fiction, is that really fraud?
Take another example: Say a car salesman has a new, 2007 Prius in stock, but he thinks it is a used, 2004 Prius. He’s an idiot (like Ross), but when he sells it as a new 2007 Prius, is he really committing fraud? He’s selling a 2007 Prius as a new 2007 Prius, even though he thinks it is a 2004 Prius.
It would be different if there were some real requirement which states that Ross had to, at some point, proclaim his beliefs in “old earth” in order to get a PhD… If he claimed that he had no such belief, it would be fraud, because the fact is that he has the belief, and knew he had that belief, but claimed he didn’t. And, actually, even if he did lie about his belief (which nobody is saying he did, since he was completely open about his YEC kookery throughout his college career), I’m still not convinced that this could be considered fraud. If somebody really does believe “gravity is caused by pink underground unicorns drawing in golden marshmallows from the ether”, is it fraud if they keep that belief to themselves and proclaim that they believe differently, because they know that others will look down on them for that belief if they ever proclaim it to the world?
If they *do* start pushing that belief in some significant fashion, such as trying to teach it in the classroom (e.g. Ross), then there is a valid complaint about them having that completely and totally false belief. But, as long as somebody has the good sense to keep that kind of lunacy to themselves, what’s the problem?
Wayne
February 21st, 2007 at 7:54 am
This guy’s not the only one, and science isn’t the only subject. Some years ago, UMass (Amherst) awarded a PhD to a Shakespeare denier. To make it worse, the dissertation depended on a mathematically incompetent statistical analysis that was missed because there were no mathematicians on the committee. (Although, frankly, the analysis doesn’t even pass a simple sanity test.)
I begin to fear that dissertations are being judged by the pound, perhaps under the fear of lawsuits.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:57 am
Err, third paragraph second sentence should read: If he claimed to have that belief, then it would be fraud because he had no such belief, and knew he didn’t, but claimed he did.
Oops.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:01 am
reasonable:
“their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God…
As far as definitions go, that one sounds very reasonable to me.
As far as definitions go, that one sounds utterly incoherent.”
not the first example of “pars pro toto thinking” around here i’m afraid …
February 21st, 2007 at 8:01 am
Perhaps this is too simple, but….
If I successfully defend my Ph.D., then return the next morning to find that
my instruments were miscalibrated and my data basically isn’t valid, then I
need to retract my Ph.D. work (and any publications associated with it) and
start over.
And if I’d rather not, well, my committee may need to do that for me.
Marcus Ross has pointed out what he believes is several errors in his work,
and hasn’t retracted his dissertation. His committee should be willing to do
that for him.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:09 am
In the beginning, was the first word,”I!”
Then came the first sentence,”I AM!”
Then came the first question,”,,,WhereTheFugAmI?”,,,
So much for true religion.
Atheist, agnostics, true believers of whatever strip, we all know/believe we will eventually know the truth, come the day we croak.
In the meantime, we have to figure out how it all works. Our bias and beliefs are culturally induced. It’s the way we overcome FALSE systems of belief that defines our self image. Some use the sword to force others to agree with their particular point of view, thereby vindicating their belief system. Some use a philosophical technique (the scientific method) to winnow patently false ideas from those that actually DO something useful. We call these ones scientists.
I don’t pray to god to solve my problems for me. I THINK and experiment and try to formulate my questions in such fashion that they CAN be answered. Asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is nonsense without first agreeing on the properties of angels.
Arguing about the existence of god is useless until we have a coherent agreement about what we mean by god.
In the meantime we still have to figure out how the universe works.
The ONLY sucessful method humanity has developed in the last 100,000years to CONSISTENTLY do that is the scientific method.
IF there is a god, IT will become clear when we know as much about reality as IT does. Then we can discuss ITs existence intelligently. Until then we’re stuck with being as intellectually honest as it is humanly possible to be and the scientific method forces us to be honest,,,
Go honesty,,,something Ross is apparently unable to be,,,
Someone once said, “,,,scratch a liar and you have a thief,,,”
Anyone who lies to get a degree has stolen that credential.
Gary 7
February 21st, 2007 at 8:12 am
Actually, as an atheist, I don’t believe I’ll know the truth when I croak, ’cause I’ll be *dead* and, thus, incapable of knowing anything at that point.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:14 am
Addendum:
I wonder who Ross is really lying to?
Perhaps he is just infiltrating the YEC so he can say,” Yes, earth is only 6000 years old, but here’s the PHYSICAL evidence of extreme age as laid down by the devil,,,”
Gary 7
February 21st, 2007 at 8:19 am
RWG
“Atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair color.
Are these guys simply incapable of basic comprehension?”
Darth robo:
“I’m not siding with Johan here (atheism=religion? Riight)”
(and all the others)
a) I’m in no way affiliated to the site religioustolerance.org
b) they give a great number of definitions of religion, and they admit that none of them are satisfying. “all definitions contain at least one deficiency” – their words, not mine
c) They also say, i quote “Agnostics and Atheists often do not regard their beliefs to be a religion. To most, Atheism and Agnosticism simply represent a single belief about the existence or non-existence of a supreme being. They do not necessarily include ethical matters.”
d) and also: “Many conservative Christians refer to Christianity not as a religion but as an intensely personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”
e) the group includes atheists, as well as any other member of a “belief” or whatever you prefer to call it
I really have no idea who the people at religioustolerance.org are, but they strike me as a bit more “open-minded” than some I have encountered here, alas
February 21st, 2007 at 8:24 am
I called the dean at URI, and he didn’t seem very happy with the situation at all. He agreed that at best, the man was academically dishonest, but that he had the credentials and test scores for admittance, and that his dissertation was properly written, and he withstood the grilling
I counter-argued that the mere fact that he was a YEC meant he was just parroting back what they wanted to hear, and he agreed.
To me, that alone should have denied him, permanently any degree in the geosciences, as he is deceptive, and a liar. A Ph.d means that he understands the PHILOSOPHY of it, and given that he works for Jerry Falwell, also meant that he intended to use it to decieve others.
They were more concerned about the potential longterm consequences than letting one through. I’m more concerned about the long term consequences of delivering the highest award a scholar can have to someoen who neither understands or believes the material he supposedly studied. It must be revoked, and he must be punished for what he’s done. If he cannot produce his god, he needs to be hospitalized for dangerous delusions
February 21st, 2007 at 8:52 am
“I really have no idea who the people at religioustolerance.org are, but they strike me as a bit more “open-minded†than some I have encountered here, alas”
So the definition of atheism should be changed to appeal to more “open minded” people? Calling it belief is one thing but it is not a religious belief (although it addresses religious implications).
February 21st, 2007 at 9:00 am
WWitzke:
True, there is only one of two things that can happen when you die:
1) between one thought and the next, you disappear or,,,
2) you continue to exist and then,,,
,,,or, as another wag put it:
“There’s only two things you need to worry about in life,
either you’re healthy or you’re sick. If you’re healthy, you’ve nothing to worry about but if you’re sick, you have only two things to worry about,
either you get better or you get worse.
If you get better, you’ve nothing to worry about, if you get worse, you have only two things to worry about,
either you live or you die.
If you live, you have nothing to worry about, if you die, you only have two things to worry about.
Either you go to heaven or you go to hell.
If you go to heaven, you have nothing to worry about.
If you go to hell,
you’ll be too busy shaking hands with all your friends
to worry,,,
Gary 7
February 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am
Atheist: “one who believes that there is no deity” (Webster’s), “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God” (Oxford).
Religion: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…” (Webster’s).
Face it, anybody with any philosophy whatsoever is religious. Maybe you should use a different word.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:23 am
>>> What this study showed was a chasm between those in the “pureâ€
>>> sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology and those who were
>>> in “applied†sciences such as engineering and computer science.
>>> Fundamentalists generally avoided the former and flourished in the latter.
>>> Why? Because they did not have to commit to the underlying truth claims
>>> of the sciences involved. They only needed to “follow the formulas†in order
>>> to achieve certain ends (think Ptolemaic astronomers who could achieve >>> worthwhile observational results without challenging a geocentric universe).
Well, as an agnostic engineer who works exclusively in R&D, I take a bit of exception to the “follow the formula” description. I don’t get paid the big bucks to follow formulas. I don”t have the luxury of government/academic grants to allow me to pursue a single idea for years. I have to innovate every single day to keep ahead of the guys down the street who would love to have my business, or even the college hire in the next office who would love my job.
Sorry, but I get tired of engineers being depicted as button pushing crank turners becuse we’re not part of some pantheon of “real” sciences.
If this was not intended then never mind and
. The 60 hour weeks can make one cranky.
### If you go to heaven, you have nothing to worry about.
### If you go to hell, you’ll be too busy shaking hands with all your friends
### to worry,,,
Was it Mark Twain that said “Heaven for the weather. Hell for the company.” ??
February 21st, 2007 at 9:34 am
Greetings.
A while back, I got rather sick of the shockingly large number of misconceptions about religion in the World today—many held by religious people, unfortunately—and so I have decided to write the definitive work on the subject. While many of you have correctly pointed out the problems with Ross as a scientist, I would like to note that Ross, as a Young Earth Creationist with a PhD in geology is making a fundamental religious error. Having studied geology, Ross is aware (or ought to be aware) of the well-established fact that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Now, any good believer in one of the Abrahamic religions believes that the Universe was created by a Deity (in this case, the Trinity), and as a consequence, the laws of physics are an expression of His/Her will. Since what we know of the age of the Earth is based upon well-known laws of physics, with plenty of attention and time to make sure the conclusion is correct, rejecting this fact is akin to rejecting the will of the Trinity, perhaps even (to cite Christian theology) a rebellion in the spirit of Satan. It is therefore obligatory for Ross to fit the reality of an ancient Earth into his Christianity, and if he cannot do that somehow, he must reject Christianity, for a religion which is inherently inconsistent with physical reality must be false. I advocate an old Jewish solution, that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are esoteric, thus denying the validity of the assumption that they can be interpreted literally. Other solutions may exist. In any case, Ross has committed the grievous sin of dishonesty, arguably crossing the line into outright heresy, and is in need of serious repentance.
Aaron Solomon Adelman, PhD
Epidemiologist, evolutionist, and Orthodox Jew
February 21st, 2007 at 9:39 am
Incidentally, Phil: kudos for clarifying your stance on this. I cannot count the number of bloggers who unintentionally stir up a hornet nest and then just walk away from the issue, but you stood up and refined your position. Good for you!
February 21st, 2007 at 9:42 am
The Bad Astronomer said:
> In my opinion — and I suspect a lot of scientists would agree — someone who claims to be a YEC simply does not understand anything about science… In the end, in the very end, getting a PhD is all about understanding the science. It strikes me that if someone doesn’t understand the science, they shouldn’t get the degree.
This is the tricky point. Does Ross understand the science? Clearly he was able to explain the science within the context of an old Earth. He was able to make a successful contribution from within the (reality) paradigm. So the fundamental issue is if his inability to believe the old Earth paradigm is a statement about his ability to understand. It seems to me he does understand, just refuses to accept on some level. That is a certain amount of cognative dissonance, but does not seem to preclude understanding the science.
Again, I sense intellectual dishonesty, but I don’t know that it’s academic dishonesty.
> The real problem here is the fact that a YEC gamed the system, purposely. I think this is a major cause of lament by many of the scientists who have posted about this. I stand by my reasoning: Ross lied, through and through, to get a degree. It’s galling, but I cannot see how they could have stopped him. I’m not sure how we can stop the next liar from doing the same thing. Creationists smell a weakness like this and they’ll be all over, sensing their next “wedge”.
The concern is over IDers and Creationists getting bona fide scientific credentials to back up their claims that they are doing science. There already are some, so this isn’t new. The main thing to point out whenever Ross is paraded out as a symbol is that Ross earned his PhD defending a scientific premise within the Old Earth paradigm. Any future research by Ross will be vetted through the scientific peer review process, or it will not be legitimate science.
The tricky part to my mind is the education standpoint. Now there’s a bona fide Geologist teaching at Liberty College. I do not know the academic standing (accreditation) of Liberty College, but that is certainly a point in their favor they can argue. I would think, though, that accreditation is more than the teachers, but what is being taught.
> I don’t complain about Christians. I complain about creationists.
As I continue to point out, labels make all the difference. The problem is the label “Creationist” does not mean what you think it means to a sizable fraction of the audience. Thus your railing against Creationists is interpreted to mean any God believer. It is semantics – if your word choice is not being received the way you intend, you are failing to communicate.
Christian Burnham said:
> Should anyone who believes in the resurrection be denied a medical degree?
There may be some wiggle room in the comparison. It is possible to slide in the possibility of God producing a miracle that would violate normal universal operations, but said past miracle is beyond the ability to study. Whereas the age of Earth is written into the fabric of Earth itself, so it is subject to contemporary study.
Sticks said:
> How about reversing this with someone doing an anthropology phd into say tribal beliefs of a group of indigionous peoples say.
> They need to demonstrate that they understand how the belief system is constructed, how it works how cerominies are conducted etc.
> Now this anthropology student is an athiest. Should they be disqualified, because although they have demonstrated an understanding of what a system says and predicts, they are not true believers in those tribal beliefs?
The situations are not parallel. One need not believe in a culture’s belief system in order to describe and understand that system. However, it is difficult to see how one can argue for the dated ages of the life and deaths of species while simultaneously believing that those ages must be wrong.
Ruth said:
> Johan Couder said “that site is all about tolerance. Surely, we cannot be against that ?†Tolerance means we allow people to do and believe things that we think are wrong or stupid without persecuting them. Despite what the PC brigade would us to think, it does NOT mean we have to respect their believes or pretend that we think they’re valid.
Exactly right! The root word of “tolerance” is tolerate, not accept or respect. Tolerance: a mutual agreement to allow the other person to be wrong.
Johan Couder said:
> I’m only using this site’s http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm
definition of a religion. Since you obviously didn’t bother to read it, here it goes:
Johan, I read that definition, but there’s an inherent flaw. Tell me, what is the difference between “religion” and “worldview” in that definition? To me, it is much more clear that Atheism and Agnosticism are worldviews by the stated definitions. Note that Religion requires a worldview, but is more than a worldview.
You are correct that defining Religion clearly is a challenge. Religion is a very complex concept. It is a compilation of features and issues that does not fit neatly into one box. However, Atheism is a term for the null set. Zero is a number only in the sense that it fills the place when no number is present. Atheism is the religious zero.
DrFlimmer said:
> And if you want it or not, there is no living without god/religion. You can negate it but all our laws and “views of life†are related to the bible (maybe the Koran, depend on where you live in the world, or maybe other “religious†textbooks). Most laws are built upon The Ten Commandments (â€do not murderâ€, sounds familiar, does it?).
I really shouldn’t pursue this hijack, but I will. Religion and God are man-made concepts. Many of us can live without them. As for our laws being founded upon the Ten Commandments, what law is based upon “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods but me”? What about “You shall not make any graven images”? Or how about, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife”? Have you even read the Ten Commandments?
Historically, it is inaccurate to say our laws come from the TC. US Law is derived from British Common Law, which mostly precedes Christianity reaching Britain. Culturally, our laws were shaped by Christianity, but the foundation and the majority of the laws (such as murder being illegal) actually predate Christianity’s influence. By the way, fundamental laws such as not killing are very old and widespread across civilizations. That’s because they are fairly basic to group cohesion.
RWG said:
> Atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair color.
Superb!
wwitzke said:
> I was under the impression that “fraud†wad defined very differently from what people here seem to be implying, that is: publishing something that is FACT as FACT, even though you believe it to be FICTION is FRAUD.
“Fraud” is a fuzzy word. One meaning is as you mean: did I get what I thought I got, or did you misrepresent the truth and give me something else? In that sense, you are correct, “fraud” is not the proper word. However, “fraud” can also mean something a little broader. The essence is the misrepresentation. In that use, Ross is fraudulent because he is misrepresenting his actual beliefs by speaking as if he accepts the Old Earth when he does not. His thesis violates his own belief, so his statements about ages for the existence of the mosasaurs is a misrepresentation of his belief about the age of the Earth. (The Earth is only 10,000 years old, but the mosasaurs were around 650 million years ago on Earth.) “Fraud” may not be the precise word, but within the fuzzy guidelines it expresses the concept.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:47 am
I’m going to have to agree with some others here that if Dr. Ross has published peer-reviewed PhD work, and has now publically recanted such work immediately after, he or the committee that awarded his degree should withdraw it.
I don’t think PhDs should be denied to anyone based on their personal beliefs, but they should be granted based on the prospect’s research and their committment to scientific investigation and principle. If Dr. Ross has promoted a paper he has always held to be wrong while—and this is important—publically denouncing his own work at the same time, he is committing fraud, no?
February 21st, 2007 at 9:55 am
Johan Couder said:
> I really have no idea who the people at religioustolerance.org are, but they strike me as a bit more “open-minded†than some I have encountered here, alas
I have no issue with the people at that website, or with the promotion of tolerance (religious or otherwise). Indeed, I think they are worthy. I am, however, concerned about abuse of terminology. If what they want to argue for is universal acceptance, then their site should be “religiousagreement.org” or some such. Tolerance is a valid and valuable concept, but don’t make it out to be what it isn’t.
Similarly, don’t make religion out to be what it isn’t. Atheism is not a religion. From a “comparative religion” standpoint, you can use it as a placeholder as an alternative, but it isn’t a religion. It is the lack of religion. How can the lack of something be the thing?
February 21st, 2007 at 10:07 am
Can, or does, a YEC believe that their god created evidence to the contrary of their beliefs? And therefore, studying the evidence of their god, they are, in a way, studying god himself?
It would be one way to reconcile the apparent hypocrisy. If, that is, he claimed this from the beginning.
Of course, if god created evidence of pre 6000 year old things, he easily could create evidence of 600 year old stuff. Heck, he could have created evidence, including memories, of six minutes ago, which would be good, because he actually created existence 6 seconds ago.
Back to the idea that Ross could study the earth’s “pre-bible” history; He could in fact, master that pre-bible history that god created. He could theorize, postulate, and find evidence to collaborate all that pre-bible history. And those theories could be correct and accepted by the people. All without corrupting his beliefs, because he believes that god put all the pre-bible history into the earth to be found and studied and predicted. That is, of course, if he admitted this was his intent from the beginning.
I could predict the direction and speed of a wind up toy, present and prove those predictions to the world with physical evidence, yet not believe that spings hold the potential energy at the molecular level. Just that god made springs do that. Wouldn’t make my predictions wrong? No.
Btw: I don’t believe YEC proclamations and I don’t believe god makes spings do that.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:15 am
Irishman said:
>“Fraud†is a fuzzy word. One meaning is as you mean: did I get what I thought I got, or did you misrepresent the truth and give me something else? In that sense, you are correct, “fraud†is not the proper word. However, “fraud†can also mean something a little broader. The essence is the misrepresentation. In that use, Ross is fraudulent because he is misrepresenting his actual beliefs by speaking as if he accepts the Old Earth when he does not. His thesis violates his own belief, so his statements about ages for the existence of the mosasaurs is a misrepresentation of his belief about the age of the Earth. (The Earth is only 10,000 years old, but the mosasaurs were around 650 million years ago on Earth.) “Fraud†may not be the precise word, but within the fuzzy guidelines it expresses the concept.
Thank you, Irishman. That actually helps clarify for me what this argument is really about: whether or not that particular misrepresentation is unethical, and whether or not that breach of ethics should be grounds for denying a PhD. This seems more complicated than what I had initially understood…
February 21st, 2007 at 10:20 am
Now that Mr. Ross is a “professor”, I wonder what he will say to his students at Liberty University when they question him about the conclusions he staunchly defended in his thesis? Will he admit everything he said was a lie? Would he fail a student who presented the same conclusions to him? Will his students be wondering if what he is teaching them is just another lie?
Of course I’m speaking hypothetically here since anyone who would go to Liberty University for an education wouldn’t dare question anything they are taught.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:26 am
The solution is to adopt Freeman Dyson’s view: that the PhD has outlived its best days; it’s no longer a very reliable indicator of the individual. I tend to think that the whole university system has seen better, more enlightened times.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:35 am
Forgive me, I haven’t had time to read all the comments but I think there is a fundamental difference between understanding and belief and that the difference allows someone to get an advanced degree in something they don’t believe.
Think about advanced degrees in things that aren’t hard science. PhD candidates in western literature aren’t required to believe that Shakespeare’s histories are true.
For the Young Earth Creationists what is hard science to you is simply another fiction that is presented as truth. Thus they can understand it and argue the evidence within the scientific framework while not believing it.
Personally, I think some rationalists should pursue PhDs in theology.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:53 am
Rasputin, you have the analogy backwards. Ross’s situation is more like awarding a PhD in history to someone who believes that everything that happened in Shakespeare’s histories is historically accurate.
The candidate is believing in a fiction that is demonstrably (and trivially) untrue, but conducts their research as if they believe it is not.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:27 am
Let’s put it this way: Suppose hypothetically that valid historical records were unearthed which undeniably show that Einstein was a believer in YEC. I would say, “So what?” That would be an interesting *historical* discovery, but it wouldn’t change the theory of relativity. The theories to which we attribute the labors of Einstein are what they are, regardless what beliefs or sentiments Einstein may have believed. The theory of relativity isn’t the least bit about Albert Einstein; it’s about the character of Nature, and is meaningfully testable today, even though Einstein has been residing in Tupperware now for decades. Works of research must not be confused with the author. Any interest I have in the author is tangential to my interest in the results of the research. Otherwise, we’re just arguing ad hominem.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:58 am
>>> even though Einstein has been residing in Tupperware now for decades…
Wow. What religion is *that* from?
February 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I’m sorry. Einstein’s *brain* was kept in Tupperware for several decades after his death by the doctor who had appropriated it during the autopsy. “Tupperware” was just my metaphor for “he’s dead”.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Yeah and Tim Learys head resides in a liquid nitrogen bottle,,,somewhere,,,
on the off chance(estimated at one in a million) that someday, someone will have the desire and the technology to clone him a body and attach his resuscitated head to it. I guess that’s better odds than Einstein had,,,
Gary 7
February 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Tacitus,
I think you missed the point. I wasn’t suggesting that Ross’ situation was similar but that in his mind it was similar.
But to take your reversal would you deny a PhD to someone who believed Shakepeare’s histories are true even when they can make all the arguments that someone who doesn’t believe they are true can make?
I mean, they did the work they understand the material, they just have a disconnect from reality.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Beyond the question of whether belief is required in addition to understanding, there is a question of granting a research degree to someone who understands yet publicly rejects the fundamental tools of a discipline. Graduate programs can and do look at an individual’s potential contribution to their discipline and while wide birth may be made for varying viewpoints, it should have been clear from the start that far from making contributions to geosciences in the future, Ross will do what he can to undermine the discipline that granted his degree. His audience is the lantern and pitchfork crowd who believe that science is something that should be politically controlled by the lowest of the low intellectually speaking.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Should a holocaust denier be allowed to get a history degree? (particularly WWII History?) As long as his answers on the test are “right”?
Hmmmm…
February 21st, 2007 at 2:05 pm
If athiesm is a religion, how can I get an income tax deduction for it
I agree that we have a conniving person here who got a PHD just so the YEC crowd could say, “Look, a PHD scientist agrees with us!”
Of course, there are PHD holders who disagree with a lot of things, frequently totally outside their field. When I was teaching high school, I didn’t like dealing with parents who were Doctors as they assumed they knew everything about science and teaching as well. I had set line for them about how if my car broke down, I don’t care how smart they are, I am taking it to an auto mechanic.
I say every time this yahoo speaks up, we just quote from his PHD thesis at him about the age of the world. Sure, he will deny that it is true and point out his “errors”. Just keep hammering away…seems to work for the Neocons here.
Rob
February 21st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Very good analogy, George! (P.S. I love your music!)
To bring the analogy to the spirit of this site, should Hoagland be granted an Astronomy degree? How about any of the fundies from fixedearth.com?
I’m just a lowly pilot and don’t have a PhD, (yet) but imagine if I was able to pass my checkrides and FAA written tests even though I believed that ‘god suspended my aircraft on invisible wires’? I knew all the right answers, but my belief could end up resulting in disaster.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pm
George,
If the only thing that is generally required for this history degree is that one get all the answers right on his test, then yes, your proposed “holocaust denier” should be given his history degree. Even if he is a vile scum.
The principles of academic freedom, and more importantly freedom of thought do not always lead to happy, pleasant results. Freedom of speech even applies to neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, even as much as we might wish that it didn’t!
As I tried to make clear in the earlier post, I think it may well be possible to set up constraints and requirements for degrees that would prevent people like Ross and your hypothetical holocaust denier from being granted degrees in subjects for which they deny the fundamental truths, but I don’t know who I would trust to set up the requirements without treading on some of the rights that we ought to hold more dearly than we seem!
The way to fight your enemies is not to become them.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
What I find interesting is how believers continuously badger atheists about where they get their morality from, if not from religion. It beggars the question, where do some believers get their morality from. For, whether it was right or not for URI to give Ross a PhD, I find it hard to equate his behaviour with any understanding of morality or ethics, not as I understand the terms anyway. Then again, perhaps we shouldn’t be that surprised, as such dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise, is almost axiomatic of YECers and IDiots I have encountered over the years. It seems anything is allowed them in the furtherance of their goals.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
As I recall from my bible studies(in the fifth grade) satan is “the great lier, the deciever and great illusionist.”
Sounds like Ross is in good company,,,
Gary 7
February 21st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Did any of you folks actually read the the times article, or are you just echoing each other’s blogs?
Ross’s advisors are quoted as having talked extensively about his beliefs, so there is no deception involved.
Ross successfully defended because he was rigorous about seperating his beliefs and his science.
ALL scientists should do this, as belief is not a statistically meaningful measure of confidence.
In fact, it is arguable that people with absurd belief systems can be excellent scientists, because the more unrealistic the beliefs, the less chance that they cross the science/belief barrier.
I’m a professional geochronologist, and I defend URI and Dr. Ross here:
http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2007/02/cool-aid-creationism-and-communist.html
February 21st, 2007 at 5:25 pm
I think it speaks volumes for the intellectual “integrity” of the university where “Dr.” Ross teaches that they are willing to grant him a professorship based on a lie.
Tells me all I need to know about the Young Earth Creationists and Falwell, as well as the “university” he founded.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Avid Reader Says:
I like how Gould put it – you don’t read the Bible to learn natural history. But in the same context, you don’t derive your morality from science.
I certainly don’t read a Bible to determine morality so would you care to rephrase that?
February 21st, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Lab Lemming,
I think you miss the point about the claimed fraud here. I don’t think anyone claimed he deceived his committee into thinking he was not a YEC. Rather, the claimed fraud is that it is scientific fraud to publish results you know to be untrue. There’s some irony here, in that the results he knew to be untrue are probably in actuality true, but nonetheless I’d say a university has cause to fire even a tenured professor if they found that the person was publishing papers they knew to be false.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:14 am
The central issue to this is not religious freedom but credibility. This young man has obtained a degree while publicly disavowing everything he had to learn in the process of obtaining his degreee – would you believe a paper written by him, would you believe the work of any collegues teamed with him on a project.
While we may disagree with the conclusions or implications of a particular piece of research we accord those involved a high level of credibility because they work within the parameters of the scientific method, this credibility evaporates if a scientist publicly declares the this method should be applied selectively.
For all the criticism he will receive the greatest fault lies not with the student but with the board if they indeed granted him a degree while being aware that his beliefs diminished his credibility as a scientist.
If the degree was granted to avoid possible lawsuits on grounds of religous discrimination then the board has avoided financial loss only by sacrificing the credibility of its graduates.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:16 am
schwa:
Absolutely incorrect. The difference between science and religion is where knowledge comes from. “knowing” something is not a scientific concept. It is a religious one. Accepting theory X based on premise Y to approach problem Z is a scientific approach, and this is exactly what Dr. Ross does.
I must admit that I don’t know how he achieves self/ research seperation, but if he can make it work, and the science is good, bully for him.
PhD examinations are not religious inquisitions. They don’t judge people’s souls. They judge the science those people do. And by all accounts, Dr. Ross does good science. What compells him to do that science is his own business, unless it compromises his work. And there is simply no data that this has occurred.
What pisses me off about the attacks on Dr. Ross are that they devalue science. To his opponents, his science doesn’t matter. Only his beliefs do. My belief is that science is more important than that.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 am
Lemming:
In what kind of Bizarro world is knowledge a ‘religious concept’?
This seems like yet another attempt to define everything which isn’t immediately mathematically provable as lying in the domain of religion.
I guess it’s not objectively provable that The Pixies were a kick-ass rock band or that Dane Cook isn’t funny. So? Does that immediately make those statements a religious question? Should I ask a priest?
The only person who is devaluing science is the guy who lied in order to obtain a Party-hard Dude (PhD).
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:18 am
Extrapolating from the existence of matter and anti-matter, perhaps Ross should have been given an anti-science degree? No? He seems to be living in a different universe from the rest of us – well, most of the rest of us…
–
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 am
What difference does it really make?
Obviously Dr. Ross is not a scientist, but received a scientific degree. He will now teach in a non-scientific environment (Oral Roberts University) and expound view points that certainly have noting to do with what he learn acquiring his degree. Yes, he may point out or even embellish the inherent inaccuracies and difficulties in getting fossils or rocks dated, and he will probably cast doubt on scientific methods in general. However, his view points will be shared with those who aren’t already non-believers in the scientific method anyway. Any WooWoos who would cite him as a source will do so with their usual barrage of garbage and nonsense and his hard earned PhD will get lost within a cacophony of absurdity.
From my view point; it seems a waste of a very intelligent person, but we each have to find our own way.
So a non-scientist teaches non-science in a non-science school, but has a science degree. It’s tough enough for real scientist to be taken seriously within mainstream academia, so what difference does it really make?
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:38 am
Wow, so much for staying on topic. Sigh… yeah, okay, too many comments. I’ll add my noise anyway.
In my mind, whether someone actually believes in the scientific method and intellectual honesty is more important than his initial work. There are lots of arguments you could make on this – a slippery slope argument, a long-term work quality argument, etc. The easiest one is as follows, super easy for zealots and “toleration experts” to understand:
If an atheist wants to be a priest (or minister, or whatever), would you let him? He performs very well on the pulpit, but if anyone talks to him afterwards he says “there is no god”. Good priest material, yes?
As for possible solution, I don’t know that there is one. The world is growing more interconnected, and it may be necessary to replace the PhD with some other system of valuation in the future. The ease with which these kinds of systems can be abused grows more deadly every year.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:48 am
Capt. Action,
Yes it could make a difference. It’s obvious Ross intends to push his religious explanation of the world on an unsuspecting public using his fraudulently obtained degree for credibility. The public isn’t going to know or care what his thesis topic was. All they’ll see are the letters prominently displayed behind his name. Unfortunately for science, there are a lot of people out there who desparately want to hear the kind of things Ross will tell them. For them, hearing it from one “expert” is all the “proof” they need.
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:57 am
An atheist being made a priest is quite different. An integral element of priesthood is belief in religious doctrines. That’s an indispensible part of the job. On the other hand, no really good scientist BELIEVES in scientifically erected theories, not even their own. If all you want out of a good scientific theory is a worldview in which to invest belief, then what’s the difference between you & any other dogmatist.
The really good scientists don’t believe in theories of Nature. Instead, they invest in them, as an employer would invest in good employees. A worker who reliably gets the job done in turn gets the boss’s confidence. When a job comes up that the worker cannot do, then the boss looks goes on a hiring expedition to find someone else who can do the job.
Furthermore, it’s none of an employer’s beeswax what the reliable employees believe on their own time. The job gets done. I can’t care less what this guy believes on his own time. What I care about is the robustness of his research. He can believe anything he wants. His published work is what it is, and is judgable independently of the author. People who cannot pry their estimate of the value of a journal article away from their opinions of the author are being childish.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
In my mind, it’s at least academic dishonesty.
Science is about utility, not truth. Theories that are useful become accepted, and perhaps extended when more useful theories come along. Or perhaps overturned.
Fundamental in that approach is the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, in opposition with the sureness of religious belief.
My presumption is that if Ross were asked, “what would it take for you to conclude that YEC is wrong?”, that he would reply, “nothing”. If that’s true, then he has failed a fundamental test for a scientist, and regardless of his research, should not be awarded the degree.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Except his degree wasn’t awarded for being a “scientist”, it was awarded for Geology. He learned mainstream geology, he applied mainstream geology, he studied some aspect of geology for his dissertation and defended it from within that context. He has demonstrated the ability to be a good scientist and display good science.
That he is unable/unwilling to apply that same methodology across the board in his life is not relevant. There are plenty of scientists who fit that role.
Like I said, I find the self-dishonesty amazing. I don’t understand how he can accept that level of cognative dissonance, to do research and advocate millions of years old rocks in one breath and then proclaim the Earth is only 10,000 years old in another. Unless he thinks the rocks were poofed into existence pre-aged.
I understand the concern, I understand the distaste. But I’m not convinced anything wrong has been done by granting his PhD. He apparently earned it, regardless of his personal beliefs.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
[...] like Phil Plait is at it again, calling out a bogus PhD. Phil’s argument is simple, and I have to agree. This [...]
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
From cobolhacker.com:
“Would any Christian attend a church headed by an atheist. Even if he had great sermons?”
Science is not Christianity. A research article in a journal isn’t a sermon. I’ve read papers authored by people with whom I haven’t the slightest personal familiarity. For all I know, any number of those authors might not have ANY actual confidence in the stuff which they’ve published. I-DON’T-CARE. I’m interested in the science. I, and I alone, will decide for myself if an author’s published work makes enough sense for me to buy into it. The truth or falsehood of propositions is not a function of who *says* them. I don’t execute the messenger.
I think this all amounts to just so much Territoriality. It’s as petty as fretting over whether or not to bestow upon the object called Pluto the exhalted status of planethood. It’s quite juvenile.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Mark Martin said:
> From cobolhacker.com:
>“Would any Christian attend a church headed by an atheist. Even if he had great sermons?â€
Actually, some of them do, they just don’t likely know it. Some clergy have some fairly sophisticated ideas about the nature and role of religion and about the “truth” value of the religious doctrines. “God” as a concept can be very allegorical. YMMV. TIWAGOS.
(TIWAGOS = Take It With A Grain Of Salt)
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:14 am
wwitzke: “Ross published his thesis, which was compiled based (I assume) on facts, and in publishing it was claiming it as fact, even though he seemed to believe it was fiction. Just because he believed it was fiction, is that really fraud?”
He published something as fact that he “knew” was fiction. That fits your definition of fraud, no? The point is not that what he thinks is fiction *is* actually fact, it’s that he published something *he* knows to be false as fact in order to get a degree. It would be like me going to Liberty University to get a PhD in young Earth science, knowing it to be false. Yes, I could do it, but it would wrong. (and it would make me feel dirty)
That being said, I’m thinking that the point here is NOT that if creationists do the research and pass their defense etc, etc they shouldn’t be awarded a degree because they’re lying. I’m thinking that the point IS: if you genuinely believe in a particular point of view, such that you are willing to base much of your life on that belief, why would you WANT a degree stating that you produced an excellent body of work in support of a contradictory opinion? Why would you spend years putting together a body of evidence to support an idea you, in fact, thoroughly disagree with?
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:17 am
What are you afraid of? God knows (pun intended) the last place in the world we want diversity of thought is a university. Are you afraid that this person may come up with a plausible theory that gives continuity to what in your pea brain is contradictory points of view?
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:55 am
This whole thing says more about the adequacy of the extant doctorate system than about Ross’s hypocisy. He played by the school’s rules, and won.
And what’s so hypocritical about it? From his point of view, perhaps the present academic system is an evil enemy. Suppose any of us found ourselves confined within a Nazi concentration camp. The Nazis would be the enemy. Would any one of us have any compunction against lying to the Nazis, telling them whatever was necessary, in order to make progress toward the ultimate goal of liberation? Just because we think Ross is knuckleheaded for believing in YEC doesn’t mean that he lacks personal integrity. (He certainly MIGHT lack integrity, but this whole affair thus far doesn’t tell me such a thing.)
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
[...] shouldn’t be awarded Ph.D.s. This forced him to clarify his already clear statements, by writing a second post: In my opinion — and I suspect a lot of scientists would agree — someone who claims to [...]
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I hardly think comparing a geology dept to a concentration camp is really a good argument. Isn’t there an old newsgroup rule about long discussions always ending up mentioning Hilter ;o)
By any sensible, everyday standard of integrity he doesn’t have any. Only some serious mental gymnastics can allow him to tell himself that he did no wrong, that speaking and worse still publishing what HE believes to be lies is not a big no no (Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD)
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Darin:
I’m not sure why I’m replying to your comment.
The guy in question was free to put any theory he liked in his thesis. However he knew that he couldn’t successfully defend the Biblical account to his committee.
That’s not due to any prejudice on part of the committee. That’s because there’s no evidence to support the Biblical account (because it’s false).
The upshot is that the student lied in order to get a PhD. He wrote a thesis he believed to be untrue just so they would pass him.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Mark Martin-
You’re wrong.
The guy is free to do research anywhere he wants. He chose to do it at an established university- which unfortunately for him requires that the research be evidence (not fantasy) based.
He was free to study at a non-accredited Biblical institution which would have let him explore his Biblical fantasies as much as he wanted.
Not sure where the Nazi persecution comes into it. If you don’t base your beliefs on evidence- then don’t go looking for a degree which requires evidence-based research.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
First I would say that an education is what you learn and not necessarily what you believe. What I’m mean is one is tested by how well that person knows the subject at hand. What you do with what you learn is your business. lf you
pay for your education, study hard, & get a passing grade what you do with the knowledge is up to you. Who has the right to tell someone what to think?
Secondly,you can look at glues and guess, but unless you can see what happened when it happened, it’s a guess. It may be a good one but it’s still a guess. In other words…what one believes to be true “aint neccessarily so”.
Thirdly, science should be viewed with an open mind. This would apply to both the young earth believer and the ancient earth believer. Truth is often a moving target. I can’t help but think some people really believe everything they think is the truth. I guess many were wrong once but found out they were mistaken.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
wwitzke: “Ross published his thesis, which was compiled based (I assume) on facts, and in publishing it was claiming it as fact, even though he seemed to believe it was fiction. Just because he believed it was fiction, is that really fraud?â€
Amanda: He published something as fact that he “knew†was fiction. That fits your definition of fraud, no? The point is not that what he thinks is fiction *is* actually fact, it’s that he published something *he* knows to be false as fact in order to get a degree.
—
That’s an interesting point, Amanda… Seeing as I’ve already changed my mind on my former position (thanks again Irishman
), I agree with you completely. The me before Irishman’s post would not have agreed with you, however, because I was going by a very literal/legal interpretation of the word “fraud.” What can I say? I was wrong.
Amanda also said: It would be like me going to Liberty University to get a PhD in young Earth science, knowing it to be false. Yes, I could do it, but it would wrong. (and it would make me feel dirty)
It’d make me feel dirty, too (blech).
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 am
Christian:
Is it allowable for an individual to have two apparent contradictory points of view in his own mind and then decide to gather all the information he can by enrolling in a PhD. Program at the local university in the field of study specific to his differing points of view? Then after acquiring as much knowledge as he can, that supports the one point, work on (over a lifetime) reconciling the two differing points of view for himself. Could anything of any value come from a person who has a contradiction that they try to solve? I think you will find throughout history that many great theories, building blocks and principles have come from men and women attempting to reconcile internal conflict. Now I don’t know if this young man will ever do anything that will one day have historical significance, but I am not afraid to let him try. Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing we want from our students and professors? Do we really want universities policing their applicants to determine if they fit a preconceived set of beliefs?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
This is an interesting line of conversation and I realize this post is late in the day, so to speak, but what of the other side of the the coin? I’m only a lowly little undergrad majoring in microbiology and biochemistry but I see this problem in my classes all the time. In Biology 151 Dr. Keller explained to his class that belief in creationism didn’t exclude belief in science and vice versa do to the simple fact that the facts are in exclusion of faith, and if we didn’t understand the meaning of the word faith then to look it up. Simply put, no matter what the beliefs of someone is that in itself should never deter or take away the right of that person to study the facts. For all we know, carbon dating is flawed in some way and the Earth is a lot older or younger than we thought. Proof is what I want and until time travel is established for people to provide proof please don’t blur the line between theory and fact. So far in about four or five classes I have been made to memorize different “ages” of the Earth, the normal is 65 BYA, but pick up a text book, these are only estimates people. Most of my professors believe in God and in science, not me, but they do. I have yet to have a major problem with their teaching methods. If anything it strengthens my beliefs in science that these people of religion can teach science in a very abstract and straigtforward way. The facts and only the facts.