No.
This is in reference to Marcus Ross, a young-Earth creationist who just got his PhD from Rhode Island University (a place I will tell The Little Astronomer she cannot attend when she is of college age). I could go into detail, but Larry Moran has done a fine job already.
The basic point is: if you think the Earth is 6000 years old, yet do a PhD project where you state repeatedly that mososaurs died out 65 million years ago, then you are a liar. Period. There is no way around this, despite any ridiculous claims in some of Larry’s comments.
Of course, apologists from the Discovery Institute have oozed out of the woodwork to defend someone who purposely and chronically lied to get his PhD in science. They try to spin it:
Ross was never deceptive about his beliefs, yet demonstrated he could accept Old Earth Darwinism as a working but falsifiable hypothesis.
That is a load of bovine excrement. He didn’t "accept it as a falsifiable hypothesis", he used it as his framework for his entire research project! If he had said "In the context of the old Earth hypothesis, this means…" then he might have been less of a liar, but in that case he never would have received his degree. To get his PhD he had to lie, he knew he had to lie, so he did. It really is that simple.
Gah, the Discovery Institute is loaded with hypocrites. Don’t they have rules about bearing false witness? They may spin and spin until the Earth rotates backwards (assuming they think the Earth does spin) but in the end they don’t understand the issue. Larry says it perfectly in his post:
If Ross rejects evolution and an old Earth then there’s something seriously wrong with his science. He doesn’t deserve to get the highest degree that a university has to offer. Why is that so hard for people to understand? If science isn’t about scientific truth then what is science?
Science is about truth. The Discovery Institute is against it. Again, it’s that simple.
And as far as Rhode Island University goes… feh to them too. I want to find out more, try to understand why they would damage science like this. I’d love to hear their side of this, but it’s hard to imagine a way that they can defend what has happened.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:23 am
No, Ross isn’t a liar; he’s a hypocrite. Stating that mosasaurs died out during the KT extinction event approx. 65 mya is stating the truth, after all. He just did it in complete contradiction to his own professed creationist beliefs, thus branding himself as a dirty, dirty hypocrite and a grade-A nimrod. One must wonder just how important his beliefs truly are to him if he’s willing to utterly ignore them in the pursuit of a degree (”selective faith” is what I call it). Then again, he probably did it just so the Discovery Institute could have a PhD in geosciences on their side, if only to add some superficially-apparent credibility to their demonstrably false idiocy.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:24 am
It appears, the end justifies the means to many of these creationists. Perhaps he intentionally lied in order to receive the advanced degree, feeling said degree will give him more validity in promulgating his beliefs.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:39 am
The gal Larry quotes from bemoans the fact that “I work very hard as a geochronologist. There are many people like me who work extremely hard to produce these dates of rocks and minerals…. and he’s essentially trying to discredit what is swiftly becoming my life’s work.”
To which I say, “So?” He’s trying to discredit your work, so he must be wrong? That’s about as fallacious an argument as folks typically accuses the YEC people of making. The whole block quote is just one big whine, and I fail to see its relevance to the discussion.
That said, I certainly agree with BA (and 90+% of the subsequent posters, I’m sure) that Ross cannot possibly dodge the label of hypocrite. I imagine the tenure board at Liberty will have a tough time reconciling his thesis with tenure at a pro-YEC school…
February 20th, 2007 at 10:39 am
so he is not a liair, then. He is a cheat. I feel so much better now.
It might forcast what DI is up to.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I think that getting a degree is just about giving the accepted answers not about what someone believes.
If a new geologist had a new theory that the Earth was in fact 10billion years old instead of 5billion, he would have to ignore this belief and give the accepted age for the Earth in his exams.
Wouldn’t insisting that students really believed what they were being taught stultify education and science?
It’s ashame that he got his degree, because now the DI can run around saying that a geoligist believes that the Earth is 5000years old, but there you are…
February 20th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Did his committee at his oral defense know of his creationist views? Most of the questions would be on the subject of his thesis, but not all. From what I know of such they can ask about anything within the field of study to see what he really knows or thinks about what his research field. In this cas, I wonder did they ask about his creationist views, which would be a fair target!
Or did he have an oral defense of his thesis?
February 20th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Did you mean to write “University of Rhode Island”?
February 20th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Larry Moran said:
The New York Times said:
Larry Moran again:
There you go.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:00 am
They should take it off him; it detracts from all those URI students who do deserve their degrees.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Re Ross
As I posted in a comment on Morans’ blog, there is a problem here with denying Ross a PhD solely on the basis of his religious beliefs. If that had occurred, he could have filed a lawsuit claiming religious discrimination and, unless the defense could show that there was something fundamentally wrong with his thesis as a basis for denying his a PhD, he might well prevail, given the current state of the courts in this country. It should be noted that he had already been admitted to the graduate school, passed all his courses, and the PhD qualifying exam, been assigned a thesis adviser, selected a suitable thesis topic and submitted what was apparently a reasonable thesis. The time for addressing his young earth crackpot beliefs was either at the time of his admittance or at the time of his qualifying exam.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I have to disagree with the premise of your blog post, Phil. Let’s look at it a different way. Can an atheist get a PhD in Religion? Of course. We are free to study any subject we want, even if we don’t agree with it. What will hopefully happen is that no reputable scientific or educational facility will ever hire this guy.
But there are no grounds to deny a degree to someone if they meet all the requirements of the program simply because they hold beliefs contrary to what they are studying.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I think that if he completed the criteria of the school’s degree program, then he’s earned the degree and is entitled to it. It’s a degree program, not a correct-belief program. He did nothing fraudulent, because his theistic beliefs are no one else’s business. It’s as if he were denied employment on the basis of his politics.
How about this: there are, in fact, doctorate-holding physicists who also profess that Earth is only a few thousand years in age. Should their PhDs all be taken away? Is this all that academic freedom is really about, denying credentials to those with wrong ideas?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:51 am
He is going to be using his qualification to give a smear of credibility to his pathetic little world view. It is a qualification he clearly holds in low esteem, despite the hard work he must have put in to get it. He will be using for the purposes of deception and the name of URI will be all over his ‘research’. The value of the URI PhD has been debased, and they should have the right to remove it.
It is not that he simply has wrong ideas, it is that he is using a genuine qualification to mislead.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:51 am
An atheist can get a doctorate in religion by writing a thesis on a philosophical or historical aspect of it. Faith isn’t required (and may in fact be an impediment). However, the situation is not analogous. A better parallel would be an atheist who gets a job as a minister and tells his congregation every Sunday that sinners are writhing in the hands of an angry God. This guy is just a liar. So is a creationist who stands up and tells a thesis committee about geological evidence which contradicts his basic creationist beliefs.
Mark Martin is correct in saying, “It’s a degree program, not a correct-belief program.” The problem is that intellectual integrity is a key part of being a scientist, or at least a good scientist. Precisely because science is not about the regurgitation of beliefs, Ross did not behave in a manner befitting a PhD candidate.
The analogy to politics is also false. In the study of social and political problems, we have no well-defined predictive theories. Experiments are difficult to perform, and bad ideas are consequently hard to winnow out. Science is hard to do, and so the vacuum of knowledge is filled with hot air: dogmas, unquestioned beliefs, infectious memes. Taking a political stance, even a shocking and radical one, does not necessarily imply a rejection of scientific method and intellectual integrity. Being an active, vocal creationist is quite another matter.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
The real long term problem is that he will now be able to promote his creationist views and attempt to make them seem more legitimate because “Hey, I *do* have a PhD in Geoscience, so what I say has merit”.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:55 am
This without a doubt a travesty to higher learning.
Goes to show why the value of an advanced degree has depreciated over the years.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Phil,
Although I sympathize greatly with your feelings about “Dr” Ross, I am in 100% disagreement with you over whether he earned his PhD! Creating a system of PhD “thought-police” is a very steep and slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Are you prepared to publish a list of all incorrect thoughts and beliefs that you feel should disqualify someone from getting a PhD in a particular field? If not you, then who, exactly, do you propose should be given the responsibility for creating and maintaining such a list? Who do you trust enough to give that kind of power?
I’m sorry, but the answer is not to become the enemy we fight against. Leave the requirements for “pure thought” to the other side.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
By the way, according to the folks at Pharyngula, Ross is teaching his Liberty University students that the “scientific religion” is full of “inexplicable gaping holes”.
So, he’s a Janus-faced liar who justifies himself with prattle about paradigms.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
The end justifies the means, it seems. Say all the lies you want as long as it gets you through to your lowlife goal. Now the guy can boast he has a PHD in the field and make more gullible people believe this load of poo thanks to his newly acquired “credibility”.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Oh yea… I forgot to mention. I agree too with SteveT. I don’t believe that the university could’ve stopped him, that dangerous. He did his work, they give the diploma. That’s how it works. I certainly grit my teeth at Ross’s disgusting behavior though.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Ockham’s razor, folks. It all boils down to the lawyers. If they refused his degree then there would be a religious discrimination lawsuit. They have to happytalk it, too.
If you are going to forbid your children from attending universities that make bad decisions, well, good luck finding one.
>>> A better parallel would be an atheist who gets a job as a minister and tells
>>> his congregation every Sunday that sinners are writhing in the hands of
>>> an angry God. This guy is just a liar.
Or a storyteller.
### Goes to show why the value of an advanced degree has
### depreciated over the years.
Oh, cheer up. Here’s some good news: I beat The Legend Of Zelda: Twilight Princess yesterday!
February 20th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
“It is not that he simply has wrong ideas, it is that he is using a genuine qualification to mislead.”
ANYONE can get a PhD, even in complete sincerity, then later have a change of mind and use that degree to subvert some particular culture. It doesn’t MATTER what the guy wants to do with his degree; as long as he’s not breaking the law, that’s his business. Last I knew, this country is still sufficiently free that it’s legal to hold & profess theistic worldviews.
He did a research project to earn his degree. If it was done properly scientifically, then that research says what IT says, and is subject to scrutiny & criticism on its own merits. It has nothing to do with the author’s ulterior motives.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I have a problem with judging the validity of someone’s science on the basis of their personal beliefs. I mean, if his thesis conclusions are themselves well justified by his evidence, his research, and his methodology, then why shouldn’t he get a PhD?
It does put his thesis review board in a very awkward position of saying “this is a nice piece of work you’ve produced to advance the state of the art in our field. It’s a shame you yourself don’t believe it.” But so what? Shouldn’t the thesis be judged on its own terms, with reference to all applicable standards of the scientific method?
I entirely agree that to do geoscience research while being a young-earther is horribly hypocritical, but I don’t see how his hypocracy has any bearing on the validity (or lack) of his results.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
There is already an scholastic honor for that … Doctor of Divinity.
Anything else would be a Commandment violation … heh.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I don’t know if I’m seeing the problem here. If Mr. Ross decides to start advocating a young Earth, won’t he have to admit that he received his PhD under false pretenses?
He’ll look like a fool.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
> To which I say, “So?†He’s trying to discredit your work, so he must be wrong?
I’m sure it’s just as gauling to an AIDS researcher when people attack the “HIV causes AIDS” idea (and there seem to be more and more of them). The problem is that they have bad evidence, they’re deceiving the public, making it harder for the public to accept the reality, and working towards making it harder to get funding for real work. In essence, they are anti-scientists because they cancel out the good work done by real scientists.
> As I posted in a comment on Morans’ blog, there is a problem here with denying Ross a PhD solely on the basis of his religious beliefs.
First of all, when you say “on the basis of his religious beliefs”, you make it sound like religious discrimination. But, that only comes into play when religious belief has little or no effect on the usefulness of the work the applicant is trying to do. Second, people really need to stop using “religious belief” as a sacred cow to protect all their bad ideas from criticism. If a person believed that witchdoctors held the cure to the world’s illnesses, believed that Western medicine was a sham, and got a Western medical degree so that he could use his authority as a medical doctor to recklessly and dangerously fool people into rejecting Western medicine and believing in witchdoctor cures, is that an example of discrimination against his religious beliefs? No.
> He did nothing fraudulent, because his theistic beliefs are no one else’s business.
It doesn’t matter what his “theistic beliefs” are. It matters that his beliefs (religious or not) prevent him from actually doing anything useful with his degree. Universities put a lot of time and effort into teaching students. If a student isn’t going to use that knowledge or is going to work against good science, then that university has no obligation to teach that applicant anything. Additionally, people need to stop believing that “religious beliefs” is some legitimate wall that allows people to think stupid things and avoid criticism.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Mark Martin - your point is well made and I concede it.
Maybe we should just award the guy a DHy - Doctor of Hypocrisy.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I cannot wait until dissenting opinions are completely removed from the scientific community. Forget PhD, why should this guy have been allowed to get any science degree? While we’re at it, let’s get those divide by zero folks, too.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the blog, but some of the last few posts seem to suggest that you’re getting very Ivory Tower on us all, driving away those who do not conform (which, of course, those who conform love). Bad Astronomy is great because it is so accessible to non-scientists. Why change it with ranting and raving over those who disagree? 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.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I have to agree with Blake Stacey, and disagree with SteveT. A PhD can, and should, be denied where the candidate is demonstrably dishonest about their work. Nobody is denying that Ross has written a dissertation making assertions which he “knows” are false. It’s not a matter of “working in different paradigms” as he says, or of giving the correct answers on an exam as is expected of undergraduates.
Here’s quote from the URI graduate studies manual:
[quote]Satisfactory progress in a plan also involves maintaining the standards of academic and professional integrity expected in a particular discipline or plan; failure to maintain these standards may result in dismissal from the plan and the Graduate School … This would include, but not be limited to, such infractions as intent to plagiarize, purposeful falsification of data or experimental results, knowingly presenting false data in journals, publications or at conferences…[/quote]
(Of course, it’s amusing that the data presented is not actually false, though the intent was to present false data. Fortunately, the “not be limited to” phrase gives the school the right to turf charlatans & liars, if they choose.)
February 20th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Credentials are what this is all about unfortunately, acquiring said credentials is about memorizing facts and spweing forth the right answers when required. Getting a Phd in physics, astrophysics, math or some other “hard” science field requires one to actually THINK about what you’re studying. Some areas, such as Psychology, sociology, economics and political “science” are much more about memorization. I know little about the studies program in geosciences, how much original thought is required for the thesis, but it would appear that Ross fulfilled the requirements of memorization without every compromising his own belief system. Therein lies the problem. ANYONE could do that, with sufficient hard work and an adequate memory. There is no requirement that the recipient of said Phd actually be creative and able to think coherently.
I read, many years ago, that the average IQ for all holders of Phds in this country was only 140. That may sound impressive, but just to put it in perspective, only one person in my family in the last two generations has such a low IQ, yet none of them are holders of Phds,(though my youngest daughter will soon complete her Dr of Vet. Medecine). The point is, 50% of Phds are held by people with IQs UNDER 140. That’s not all that smart,,,
I wonder just how long Mr. Ross will be able to maintain his minds compartmentalization, ignoring the inherent contradictions between what he had to “learn” for his degree and what he wishes to believe. I also wonder if he realizes such conflicts can lead to a degradation of his intellectual function, ie, make him stupider?
Maybe he just doesn’t care to be smart. It’s painful, knowing too much,,, or so SOME seem to believe,,,but I’m not one of those.
Gary 7
February 20th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Of course he should be granted the PhD. Most people seem to be ignoring the positive side of all this. DI opponents could simply post statements made in his PhD thesis and explain that these statements come for a professor at Liberty University and show that the YECs are wrong. Why worry about what this guy will try to do with his PhD when the tables can be so simply turned on him.
A PhD means very little - what matters is the work itself and if his work advances scientific insight, no matter what his beliefs, let him have the PhD and let him make a fool of himself is he so wishes.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Yo, what is wrong with you? You seem to have this fixed delusion that all creationists are hypocrites and liars and idiots. You seem to be a control freak and flip out whenever something doesn’t go the way you don’t want it to go. Not all creationists believe in the ‘God created everything 6000 years ago’, some actually mix evolution and creationism together. They’re not idiots and if they want to believe in something that’s their choice and who are you to judge peoplel like that? If a guy likes the Earth a lot and so happens to be a creationist let him get a flippant PhD! And any college is a good college if it gets you a great education.
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! Dude! Give some respect! You can’t always get what you want!
February 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Yes, he was dishonest, but his dishonesty was, well, honest. Two wrongs, effectively making a right in this case.
Is a PhD awarded because the candidate honestly believes in their work, or because their work is accurate, factual, and advances the field? Those two things (apparently) are not the same thing, but the answer to the question is very important.
It has always been my understanding that a PhD is awarded to a student whose work is accurate, factual, and advances the field. That the student believes his work is those things is assumed, but is it a realistic assumption? Perhaps it is, and if so, then academic standards should be adjusted accordingly.
However, at this instant, I’m not sure academic standards require the student to not be a hypocrite. This is probably because the issue is usually looked at from the other side: Nobody could possibly get a PhD in geophysics by advancing, say, a geocentric model of the universe. I just don’t think anyone considered whether a creationist could suck it up and advance a field of research in a non-creationist way.
What he has definitely done is devalued all PhDs everywhere by confirming what so many people think: PhD stands for “Piled high and Deep” It is evident that guy was piling it both high and deep, and now academia really does owe itself, and the rest of the world, some self-reflection on what the standards are for granting degrees - especially doctorates.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Putting all comments about hypocrisy and legitimacy of Mr./Dr. Ross aside for a moment, I’ve been wondering something since this story first broke — is the science in his dissertation valid?
Has it already or will it pass peer-review?
At this point, all he has is his dissertation — a major requirement for a Ph.D, but not a peer-reviewed publication. Perhaps the situation is different in other fields of study (Entomology/Taxonomy for me), but I know of many theses and dissertations sitting on their author’s or the confering university’s library shelves but that information remains in limbo until published in a peer-reviewed process. In particular, if a taxonomist describes a new species in a thesis or dissertation (or in a newspaper article, on a website, on a napkin…), that name remains unavailable until published in a manner that meets the requirements set forth by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN).
So I guess what I’m saying is that for the moment, I’m not too concerned about a dissertation, even one written by someone who has possibly misrepresented himself or doesn’t necessarily believe in his own research. I would be quite concerned if the science were bad AND it got published. Even then, other researchers would be free to dispute his findings.
As far as the Discovery Institute getting someone through the Ph.D. process, well, that’s a double-edged sword. If said person produces good science on Geology or Evolution, then the DI has helped promote the science they claim to bash. But then, I have always felt that the DI people are simply beta-testers for Evolution.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
> Half the time all you do is complain about Christians and saying how stupid they are!
No, he complains about stupid people. Unfortunately, many people can’t see the stupidity of their ideas because of their religious beliefs, and then because their stupid ideas are tied to their sectarian religious beliefs, they are supposed to be immune from criticism. Complaining about stupidity is very different than complaining about Christians in general.
> Give some respect!
Earn some respect.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I will concede that the URI graduate manual that GaryG quotes does allow for the possibility that the University could create a useful set of legal documents that all PhD candidates could be required to sign upon submitting their thesis. These documents could require the candidate to sign his name to a statement that he or she believes that the data and theories presented in the thesis are correct (to the best of their knowledge).
No signature, no PhD!
This might have caught “Dr” Ross and others of his ilk. Short of this kind of demonstrable deceit, I stand by my original argument. We MUST NOT punish people simply because of what we think they believe (or don’t believe!). I would think that atheists, of all people (as many of you have professed to be), should hold THAT particular concept quite dearly!
February 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
[…] OK, that’s a terrible title. Anyway…. Phil Plait at BadAstronomy has a post titled: Should creationists be able to get PhDs in geoscience? He explains the case of young-Earth Creationist Marcus Ross who is currently teaching biology at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, got his PhD by writing and defending a thesis about the 65 million year old mosasaurs. So, this young-Earthist basically committed fraud in order to get his PhD, and at the very least is hypocrite willing to lie and deceive in order to get ahead. […]
February 20th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I’m sorry Phil, but I think I actually disagree with you here. It’s simply not reasonable to expect some kind of litmus test on belief in order to get a degree. If a candidate can convince his PhD board that his thesis work merits the award of a degree, it seems rather odd to deny him that degree on the basis that he promotes a different agenda outside of the ivory tower. I can’t see how that is helpful.
It is easy to criticize most creationists on their credentials, and I’m beginning to suspect that it was actually *too* easy. Rest assured, if Ross gets his degree, we could endlessly discuss his hypocrisy, I can’t imagine any reputable school employing him, which is probably why he ended up at Liberty University where he can only destroy the minds of those who already have decided that they want to have their minds destroyed.
We’d like to believe that earning a PhD means something, and in a lot of cases it does. But that a few young earth creationists may be as monumentally dishonest as to earn a degree in a subject which they do not believe solely for the purpose of parading their credentials hardly requires any draconian measures to combat. You must remember: creationism is at its heart a very lazy phenomenon. It’s the idea that you can ignore anything which does not fit your preconception of the Bible. Very few of these will ever see a degree through to the end.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Is Dr. Ross intellectually dishonest? Almost certainly. Is Dr. Ross academically dishonest? I don’t know that he is.
His thesis was heavily vetted by the review board and approved. His science was found sound. How important is it that he doesn’t believe his own results?
His dishonesty is distasteful, and his word games to justify it are not convincing. He’s an intellectual fraud, deliberately covering his own beliefs to earn a degree that he can use to lend legitimacy to his own endeavors. However, I’m not certain that’s grounds to revoke his degree.
If the science, the reasoning, the conclusions are valid, they will stand with or without his belief.
The important question is how to respond. He is already using the degree to lend academic legitimacy to his counter-beliefs. That is the issue at hand. I think a prominent disclaimer by the school (His degree was awarded based upon a thesis within the framework of an old Earth consistent with modern Geology) would be useful. Couple that with a response whenever he’s mentioned of his intellectual dishonesty and his advocating a scientific position he does not believe.
RAF said:
> I don’t know if I’m seeing the problem here. If Mr. Ross decides to start advocating a young Earth, won’t he have to admit that he received his PhD under false pretenses? He’ll look like a fool.
I guess you missed the part where it said he has a teaching position at Liberty University, a conservative Christian college. That he participated in a DI sponsored DVD arguing for ID. He does not admit to getting the degree under “false pretenses”, he plays word games to make his pretenses true for the limited application for which he used them. Does he look like a fool? To us, certainly, but we’re not his intended audience anyway.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
As a URI PhD grad this whole thing is a true embarrassment. The people who are defending the granting of Ross a PhD in the interest of religions freedom are ignoring how closely his positions on the age of the earth relate to his dissertation topic. I concede that there is a set of scenarios that present challenging philosophical issues about the division between people’s beliefs and the work they may do as a scientist, but nothing I have read suggests to me that this case belongs in that set.
From the NYTimes article:
“While still a graduate student, he appeared on a DVD arguing that intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, is a better explanation than evolution for the Cambrian explosion…â€
He said this as a student! You simply can not go off campus and make pronunciations about how ID is superior to evolution in explaining observed changes in the fossil record and then come back to campus and expect your committee to ignore them. Those comments should have been fair game at both his comprehensive exam and during his oral defense. Earning a PhD is more than simply having good hands in the lab and being able to write well.
There are, of course, many details we do not know but on the face of it, it looks like his committee gave Ross a pass on some tough issues. While I consider myself a microbiologist, technically my degree is in Oceanography. During my exam, I was asked some questions about the tidal cycles in the bay I studied. While not directly related to my work, these questions were fair game under the exam rules. What if I had said that I understood the current theory was that the gravitational pull of the moon was the primary force driving the tides but I myself believed that Descartes 17th century vortex theory which involves compression of the ether by the passage of the moon overhead is really what drives the tides? I’d have been run off campus on a rail.
Ross was treated with kids gloves.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Personally I would not buy a car from Mr Ross since he clearly has NO integrity at all. If he is a young-Earther then he wrote what HE believes to be lies to get his PhD. It doesn’t matter that what he wrote was factually true, he doesn’t think it was, in his own mind he spent months being a lair to gain a title. I mean, what a low life little rat-fink! I don’t imagine any real university will be troubled by him, he’s probably off to one of those religious nut-job places where his kooky views fit anyway.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
If he does the work, then he deserves the degree. Period.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Re Mark Martin
I find it hard to believe that a physicist in any branch of physics with an authentic PhD from a reputable university could be a young earth creationist. He/she would have to reject quantum mechanics, one of the two legs upon which modern physics stands to do so. As an aside, my PhD thesis adviser was an old earth creationist (it would be pretty hard for an elementary particle physicist to be a young earth creationist).
February 20th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
We are standing at a point with this topic where “the free world” must ask itself if it is really “free”. And if it is we must accept that “Mr. Ross” gets his PhD.
His beliefs are wrong, it seems, but this is no reason to deprive him his well-earned degree if he had worked in a “scientific” way.
Shall I not get my BSc, MSc or PhD because I do not want to believe in some theories like dark matter and dark energy? It seems that there is something like that out there, but we do not know. Einstein’s general theory of relativity seems to be right so far, but we do not know. The QCD is a good descreption of nucleii, but is the standard-model really right? We do not know!
All right, I know these examples are some of the biggest questions in physics, but I just wanted to show up what “right” means (to me), and that there is NO reason to deprive “Mr. Ross’s” well-earned degree (as said before).
February 20th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
@ SLC
It doesn’t matter if he believes in what he is doing. It’s just about that he is doing his work in a “scientific” way. If he did, there is nothing to say against his PhD.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Yes, BA, he should get a PhD.
If you read the book “Gallileo’s Mistake” by Wade Rowland you will find an interesting idea– there is no good evidence that Galileo’s public repentence was insincere. Even if historians were to debunk the “still it moves” myth, I don’t think we’ll have people questioning the credibilty of Galileo’s work. Instead we’ll have people saying “Isn’t that interesting” and then going along and building on what Galileo did right and ignoring what he did wrong. In other words, Galileo’s science stands no matter whether he was a pope kisser or the model skeptic.
I’m ashamed of Christians who inject religion into their science, but I’m equally or more ashamed of scientists who first gripe that religion should be kept out of science and then go on to gripe more when a truly religious person keeps his religion out of his science. It shows the true colors not of a scientist but of an atheist hiding behind science as an excuse, which frankly comes across as just as much of a lie to everyone who isn’t of the same mind.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I’ve been waiting for you to blog about this, Phil, ever since I sent you the link.
My husband and I discussed this the other night - we both have Ph.D.’s in science (he in molecular biology and I in astronomy). Sorry, Phil, but we both disagree with you. Yes, what Ross is doing is hypocritical, but if he did the work and presented his thesis and in any published papers as sound science, then he should be allowed to get his degree. To deny it based on his religious beliefs starts a dangerous slippery slope.
While I was in grad school, a fellow grad student was also a young Earth creationist. We all knew he was pretty religious but he kept his YEC ideas to himself. It wasn’t until after he defended his masters thesis on the ages of supernovae remnants (all at least 10,000 years old) and revealed to his advisor as he was leaving that he held YEC ideas. His scientific work was sound and he published a few papers. I was amazed at his ability to compartamentalize so much.
I think the way to fight Ross and others is to point what Ross has written and published. If what Ross has written scientifically supports the argument that the Earth is old, then that is the correct rebuttal.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Yeah, I have to agree with nate, DrFlimmer and others. As odious as Mr. Ross’ hypocrisy is, that does not seem to legitimately bar him from getting his degree. To take such steps would be to set a very dubious precedent, one at least as dubious as the one Ross himself set.
Having said that, I see no reason why his duplicity should be forgotten or in any way downplayed. As Irishman suggested, a statement by RIU pointing that out would be useful, and perhaps discourage other would-be hypocrites from following Mr. Ross’ example.
February 20th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
As a student studying geoscience, Mr. Ross had ample opportunity to express his true beliefs and chose not to. If he now considers himself a “scientist” (and one that will demand credibility from the public), then surely he must have conclusive evidence to support those beliefs. And if his evidence is that good then, as an aspiring scientist, he should have been confident enough to use it in a thesis that argues for young earth.
A deliberate deception such as this should have some bearing on the ability of an institute of higher learning to revoke a degree. We’re not talking about scientific persecution like that suffered by Galileo as previous posters have suggested. Galileo was practicing science, Ross isn’t. Since university tuition only covers a small fraction of the cost of learning, the taxpayer is paying the rest of the bill. Shouldn’t the student have a moral obligation to give them good value for their money?
Call me cynical but I’m willing to bet Mr. Ross is not making any attempt to gather any hard evidence of a young earth in his new job either.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Honest scientists aren’t allowed to write papers that go against their beliefs? This seems to me the equivalent of banning all forms of playing the devil’s advocate.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I had a similar experience. After graduation with a degree in biology, one of my lab partners came up to me and asked me if I really believed in “all of that stuff.” I asked what he meant, and he said “evolution”. I couldn’t believe it. The guy had just spent four years of his life studying something he firmly believed was false. All of biology makes no sense at all outside the evolutionary context. I asked him what the difference between a Golden Retriever and a West Highland Terrier is. He said they are different, and God created them that way. I said no, Lord Tweedmouth of England created the golden retriever in 1865, and the Duke of Argyll created the Westie. He said “that’s selective breeding, that’s different”. I asked him how selective breeding is different from evolution, since they both are genetic change caused by environmental factors over time. I eventually got him to admit that genetic change over time happens (hard to dismiss when you look at a Westie and a Golden retriever) but he drew the line at speciation. Then I asked about Great Danes and Chihuahuas, and asked if you found them in the wild, would you ever think they were the same species? Of course, they’re both dogs. But compared to the yellow-shafted flicker and the red-shafted flicker, two species of birds which are almost impossible to tell apart, the Dane and the Chihuahua seem different enough to be seperate species. But man created them as breeds of dogs, so they are not species, which can only be created by God. The guy had spent four years of his life studying biology, even advanced evolutionary biology, genetics, and molecular biology, but the mechanisms he studied were just things to be recited by rote to get a diploma for financial gain, not for knowledge or learning. Plasmid transfer that conferred antibiotic resistance between sperate strains of bacteria was a “parlor trick”. Drug-resistant bacteria were beyond him.
The fact of the matter is that anti-science is big business. Anyone with any kind of degree can make a lot more money poking holes in the scientific establishment and promoting themselves than by actually doing science. Real science doesn’t pay very well and is not very glamorous. But the average person loves to see the “smart guys” humiliated by the “common folk”.
On one hand, people need to be educated about science and how it works; for instance the difference between a scientific theory and unsupported speculation. On the other hand, scientists need to better connect with the rest of us. Articulate scientists, whatever their calling, need to directly dialog with the public.
Like, maybe start a blog or something … wait a minute, what website am I on, anyway?
February 20th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I’d say, “No PhD.”
Call it esoteric if you will, but there is such a thing as academic integrity and if goes further than simply not cheating or not falsifying research.
What it comes down to, for me, is “Dr.” Ross’ train of thought going into the whole thing. It almost makes me wonder why in the Blue Hell he seriously focused on geosciences in the first place.
How could “Dr.” Ross do the work for his doctorate and still be a Young Earth Creationist? How could he spend years of his life studying a vocation that, regularly and with ease, disproves one of the core principles of his very being?
The only way he could persist with a YEC belief and still study true geology is by intentionally undermining the overwhelming scientific consensus. He’d have to look at the astonishing body of evidence and say, “Screw that.”
He’s mocking real science by using it to earn his academic credentials even though he, evidently, doesn’t “believe” in it. He’s like a guy who openly says, “I’m a staunch Democrat,” trying to run as a Republican.
Anyone who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old yet writes a NON-FICTION piece on something 65 million years old is either an idiot, a liar, or a charlatan.
If he tried to use the same science to prove what he really believed, he’d be (rightfully) dismissed from serious scientific debate.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:39 am
The idea of getting a degree and then using it to backup whatever claptrap you choose to spew is not uncommon. One need only look at advertising for “fringe†medical treatments to see examples. And I think most graduates could name a professor or two who made them wonder about the integrity of the PhD process.
I give Ross credit for not hiding his beliefs. I would be a LOT less comfortable if he had not admitted to being a YEC until after he got the PhD.
I also think most people commenting have the wrong perspective. The general feel seems to be “Can a YEC do credible geological research?†I think a better question is “Can someone who does credible geological research truly be a YEC?â€
Ross’s beliefs will never change scientific facts.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:52 am
Unfortunately, I have to say that I think Ross should be allowed to keep his PhD, though I hate the idea (and I don’t think I will give him the “Doctor” honorific). But, I can have an active imagination, and can imagine a situation where a graduate student in a scientific discipline has fallen into a situation where the research in which they are involved gives rise to evidence that forces them to a conclusion that goes against their beliefs.
Let’s talk in abstracts… Say student A is doing research for their doctoral thesis involving Widgets, since he believes firmly that Widgets have this important Property in which he’s believed his entire life. Further, he thinks he has sufficient existing evidence, historically obvious at least to A (though perhaps not scientifically valid), to support this idea, which is why he decided to formulate novel experiments and research tracks to prove the Property of Widgets. However, during the course of his research and experimentation, the results contradict absolutely every piece of evidence in which A had, previously, firmly believed. In the end, he is forced to conclude that, because of his observations and accumulated factual data, that Widgets do not, in fact, have that Property. However, he still believes that they must, and that some as-yet-hidden flaw in his research will be brought to light some time in the future refuting his conclusions.
So, A’s honest, valid science led him to a conclusion that he firmly disbelieves. Should student A be denied his PhD? Is stubbornness and self-denial grounds for denying a PhD? I don’t think they are, and I think A should be granted a PhD. Even though he’s bull-headed and close-minded, his science was good, and even if he honestly spends his entire life trying to disprove the results of his thesis, he will still be contributing to the scientific community by his results. Further, I think Ross is just a more extreme example of this same situation. If Ross were to continue to do honest, valid science, he, too, despite his beliefs, would contribute to the scientific community by continually refuting said beliefs. His only alternative, really, is to *not* do any more actual science.
I suppose that it may be possible to argue that Ross shouldn’t have been awarded a PhD precisely because of the prediction that he will never do real science again, or even abuse the PhD via kookery, but that seems to be a bad standard to use in judging a PhD candidate, analogous for arresting a person because they *might* commit a crime in the future. Can a committee really make a judgment for awarding a PhD based on what a person might or might not do after they have that PhD?
However, if (when) Ross *does* abuse his PhD, I think that would be a perfectly valid reason for revoking said PhD, but now we’re talking about turning this into a licensing program that requires checks and balances and oversight and some kind of controlling authorities… And I think that getting a PhD is probably expensive enough as it is
Wayne
February 21st, 2007 at 9:13 am
BA says, “Don’t they have rules about bearing false witness? ”
Yes, they do, but, this is one of those many(10) rules which are used only when convenient and are usually only applied to others.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:17 am
SLC Says:
“I find it hard to believe that a physicist in any branch of physics with an authentic PhD from a reputable university could be a young earth creationist. He/she would have to reject quantum mechanics, one of the two legs upon which modern physics stands to do so. As an aside, my PhD thesis adviser was an old earth creationist (it would be pretty hard for an elementary particle physicist to be a young earth creationist).”
Nevertheless, it does happen. For example, there’s Professor Donald DeYoung, of Grace College, Warsaw, Indiana. He holds a PhD in physics, granted by Iowa State University, and he is a devoted Young Earth Creationist. He is an adjunct professor with the Institute for Creation Research, for which he does research and writes creationist articles. He also writes articles for Answers In Genesis. One such article offers an analytical argument such that the Moon cannot possibly have been receding from Earth for billions of years. This argument is fatally oversimplified. I think he’s one of those guys who asks just enough questions to get him to where he wants to be- and no further.
But whatever. He holds a doctorate in physics, from a viable school, and believes in a Biblical young Earth.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:33 am
It seems to me there’s another concern that may have been on the mind of Rhode Island University faculty that accepted him into the program and granted his degree. If scientists prevent the awarding of degrees to Creationists explicitly because they are creationists (i.e. for their beliefs), besides the religious discrimination question there is the granting of the rhetorical point playing into the Creationist hands that they are being unfairly eliminated from the community.
The scarier question to my mind has to do with the peer review system. So far, one of the biggest defenses of good science is the peer review system, the subjecting of the research to the academic community for criticism and evaluation. At some point they’re going to look at generating their own “independent peer review system” because they feel unfairly blocked from the mainstream line. At that point, it becomes more difficult to justify their science as poor when they submitted to a “peer-reviewed academic journal” - the Journal of Creationism and Intelligent Design. The combination of scientists with valid academic credentials reviewing works in this “journal” and applying critical review within the context of Creationism leaves me much more unnerved than one dishonest PhD.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Irishman, I agree with you entirely. If the scientific community intends to remain scientific, then it must not be reduced to a “worldview-club”. Science is not the fruits OF science. The scientific community can be much more dignified than to cling jealously to power. It must put itself at some risk of losing its status as a social institution. Note: I’m not savoring the thought of such a scenario. It would be sad indeed. But science must not be given carte blanche any more than should faith-based theology. The great strength of science is that it does earn its way through life, whereas pure-faith is a bid for endless free meals.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Ug, how the pendulum has swung from the days when objective truth was required to fit within a given subjective framework. Must the opposite now be true?
Further, if Ross supports a failed young earth theory due to the overwhelming evidence against it, then how do we judge others who have posited theories in direct contradiction to sound science? Darwin knew from Kelvin (an “odious specter†as Darwin called him) that the oldest the Earth could be was around 20 million years, though his natural selection hypothesis required far greater time. Darwin also had no mechanism for trait inheritance other than his eventual PanGenesis hypothesis which was ad hoc and unaccepted by the majority of science. He had little to no supporting fossil evidence, and weak answers to blending and transitional varieties in adjoining habitats, each with a different species. Yet, he carried forward anyway.
This certainly offers no support for YEC but I am suggesting neither Ross nor Darwin should be considered as liars or having acted disingenuously on the basis of a belief that science is flawed in certain areas.
Let’s judge a tree by its fruits. Ross is, apparently, an associate prof. Does he teach good geology, or not? If he is teaching established science and not preaching mainstream science is false, why throw stones at him; hand them to him and see what he does.
I wish every youth interested in YEC would go for a PhD because I think many of them would understand enough not to accept its narrow interpretation.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Oops, Ross is an assistant prof., not “associate” prof.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Nuts, I missed the detail that he is likely teaching YEC material since he is an assist. prof. at the Jerry Falwell school. Nevertheless, a PhD should be allowed on objective merits, not disallowed for sidelined subjective ones.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:19 pm
wwitzke asks,
So, A’s honest, valid science led him to a conclusion that he firmly disbelieves. Should student A be denied his PhD? Is stubbornness and self-denial grounds for denying a PhD?
This may surprise you but the answer is yes, the student should fail. Any student who refuses to believe what his data is telling him is in big trouble. In my Department we have failed students who are incapable of analyzing their data and reaching rational scientific conclusions.
What do you expect us to do with such students? Many people here seem to imagine that we give out Ph.D.’s willy-nilly to anyone who can do a few experiments and write them up without spelling mistakes. That’s just not correct. We expect students to reason and think about their work and put it in context.
Yes, you heard me correctly, we examine Ph.D. candidates on their ability to think. That’s why we have Ph.D. committees that question the student twice a year; that’s why we ask our students to give departmental seminars where they have to defend their data; that’s why the thesis has an introduction, a discussion section, and a conclusion chapter; and that’s why there’s an oral component to the Ph.D. exam.
I can’t for the life of me imagine how Marcus Ross jumped all those hurdles. Did nobody ask him about the age of the Earth or about evolution?
February 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
wright says,
Yeah, I have to agree with nate, DrFlimmer and others. As odious as Mr. Ross’ hypocrisy is, that does not seem to legitimately bar him from getting his degree. To take such steps would be to set a very dubious precedent, one at least as dubious as the one Ross himself set.
This is nonsense. There’s no “precedent” involved here, let alone a dubious one. We flunk students all the time for not understanding the basic concepts in their field.
The dangerous precedent was in allowing Ross to get a Ph.D. in spite of the fact that he rejects the core principles of paleontology. Everyone at the University of Rhode Island knew that Ross was lying in his thesis. He gets a free pass because people are willing to excuse stupidity as long as it’s based on the Bible.
Please, can we stop repeating the nonsense that your understanding of science is irrelevant? It’s highly relevant for every other student. Ross should not have been an exception.
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:59 am
Time and time again I hear people saying that Ross can’t be barred from a Ph.D. because of his religious beliefs.
Why?
The fact that his belief is a “religious” one doesn’t really matter. Here you have someone who looks at all the mountains of evidence for an old Earth and openly rejects it. When someone rejects evidence out of hand simply to retain a belief, that person is anything but a scientist.
Imagine for a few moments that this isn’t a religious belief. Imagine that Ross said “I’m an atheist, and despite all this evidence for an old Earth, I think the Earth is 6000 years old, and I have no evidence for that. It’s just because I think so.” Would you (a) grant him a Ph.D., (b) throw him out on his ear, or (c) call the loony bin?
From the perspective of science, the question is whether or not the belief is based on evidence. If it isn’t based on evidence, it’s nonscientific. You can’t simultaneously be a scientist and ignore the evidence. Period. Ross doesn’t deserve his Ph.D.
I find increasingly irritating this special dance we must do if the belief happens to be “religious”. “Religious” does not equal “free pass”. You could claim that your religious beliefs require you to dance naked in the center of a busy intersection on the vernal equinox, but you’re still going to get your butt thrown in jail.
No one is saying Ross doesn’t have a right to his religion, or to his patently idiotic beliefs about the Earth being 6000 years old–what he doesn’t have a right to is a Ph.D. Science isn’t based on rights. It’s based on evidence.
If I wanted to be, oh let’s say, a Baptist minister. And I went to the right schools and seminaries and performed all the requisite rituals and answered all the test questions correctly, but maintained all along that I didn’t really believe in this stuff and that I was an atheist, d’you think they’d let me become a minister? Hmmmm? Of course not! You can’t reject the entire dogma of a given religion and still claim to be a member of it.
Likewise you can’t reject everything the evidence says and still be a scientist. This isn’t dogma, it’s evidence. If fantastic new evidence was discovered that proved the Earth was 6000 years old beyond any shadow of a doubt, Science would eventually adjust. That’s what Science does, no matter how painful.
Will Ross abandon his YEC beliefs based on the evidence? If the answer is “no”, then he is not a scientist. And he doesn’t deserve that Ph.D.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
How in the world do you arrive at the notion that people want to give this guy special privileges on the basis of his beliefs? It’s just the opposite. The principle argument in his favor has been that he shouldn’t be denied a degree on this same basis. It’s argued that he did the work, he’s now entitled to his wages.
And if faith-based schools want to deny their degrees to atheists, then that’s their pathetic, small-minded business. I think that academic culture can be much better than this.
Let’s ask this: what if the guy, in the course of his career, actually coughs up pointed evidence that the World really *is* only 6,000 years old? I contend that there’s nothing patently unscientific in entertaining such a hypothesis. I consider it evident to my satisfaction that Earth is billions of years old. I do not consider it an objective fact. People who think that science reveals what’s objectively occurring between the data points don’t have an especially thorough grasp of science.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
[…] first post is titled Should Creationists be able to get PhDs in Geoscience? He answers his own question succinctly: […]
March 1st, 2007 at 6:49 pm
[…] takedown of yet another a scare story about genetically modified food and Phil Plait’s rant about the story of the creationist who got a Ph.D. in geoscience and made national […]
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
[…] it is someone else’s turn. Bad Astronomy, Sandwalk, and Skepchick have fiery posts on the […]
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:16 am
He is no scientist therefore a big NO to his PhD. furthermore the people that presented it should have a good look at themselves.
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:00 am
Don’t they have rules about bearing false witness?
Yes, but bearing false witness is a very specific kind of lying. Regular garden variety lying is not only OK, it’s the bone and sinew of religion.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
just stumbled across this site while doing some research. Re:Marcus Ross I tend to agree with those who say ‘Hold your nose and issue the PHD. If he tries teaching YE in a ‘Hard Science’ institution he would be foolish, and if it is at a Religiously oriented school they would already believe it. In private industrial geology (mineral exploration for instance) his beliefs would probbly not effect his work in any case.
Re: The moon landing hoax it still occassionally surfaces in conversation, strangely enough with Creationists who seem to buy into the hoax scenario very readily - perhaps a symptom of fundemental lack of scientific knowledge. I have however found a very persuasive non-science argument that occured to me when I saw the original program. It was 1969, the height of The Cold War and yet the people who at the time would have certainly known the Apollo missions did not happen as presented, and who would have had the most to gain by exposing a fraud did not - the Soviets. That silences all skeptics; very few would suggest that the USSR would have collaborated with the US.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
[…] takedown of yet another a scare story about genetically modified food and Phil Plait’s rant about the story of the creationist who got a Ph.D. in geoscience and made national […]