"Playing by science's rules"

[Mallon]

Here's a story that didn't get much attention on these forums...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?ex=1183867200&en=8c1a00aa21743b3c&ei=5070

Briefly, it's about a young earth creationist named Marcus Ross who earned his PhD studying the abundance and distribution of an extinct group of marine reptile. His thesis is framed within an old earth perspective, and is strongly influenced by evolutionary theory. And yet, throughout his degree program, Ross did not believe a word he was writing. He has since gone on to become a biology/chemistry professor at Liberty university, proudly touting the "PhD" next to his name.

What do you think of Ross' approach? Is there a certain logical disconnect here? What do you think of the ethics surrounding the issue?

 

[KerrMetric]

He's not the only person to have done this. Heck, some well known ICR/AIG members have written papers with old Earth/Universe perspectives to journals - and still do so despite being in the ICR/AIG camp for 10-20 years.

 

[Mallon]

One thing I would really like to ask Ross is "why?" Why dedicate four years of your life to something you don't believe in from the start? And what value does your PhD hold for you if you truly believe your research was garbage? Maybe I'll email him sometime...

 

[Galle]

One thing I would really like to ask Ross is "why?" Why dedicate four years of your life to something you don't believe in from the start? And what value does your PhD hold for you if you truly believe your research was garbage? Maybe I'll email him sometime...

I would hypothesize it's for the perceived authority that a PhD gives him. Creationists put a great deal of stock in the perceived authority of whoever puts forth a claim (not necessarily an argument). Ross may be hoping to use his degree in an attempt to provide validity for creationist claims.

For example, have you ever noticed how many times this (http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf ) gets brought up to validate ID? It doesn't provide an argument nor does it support ID. Heck, it doesn't really say anything contrary to the theory of evolution. But because it's labeled as "dissent from Darwinism" and because the people who signed it are perceived as authorities, the Discovery Institute uses it to bolster their credibility among creationists.

Or for another example, take the creationist saying "God said it, I believe it, that settles it". There's no argument, no facts, not even a good reason to believe that God really did say "it". All it means is that a creationist attributes her belief to God, and on the strength of God's authority, declares that belief true.

Or for a less-obvious example, look at how creationists try to smear Darwin. Darwin was a great scientist, but he was hardly the only one to work on evolutionary theory. And even if he were, the validity of evolution would rely on the evidence, not on Darwin's morality. Creationists that attack him and quote mine his works do so because they think that science is a game of authorities, that Darwin is some sort of high priest of evolution, and therefore if they can attack Darwin and erode his authority, the validity of "Darwin's" theory will also be eroded.

 

[Mallon]

Ross may be hoping to use his degree in an attempt to provide validity for creationist claims.

This might very well be true. But I hope it's not. I would like to give Ross the benefit of the doubt and credit him with having a PhD for more than just bragging rights among his fellow YECs. Still, I can't imagine what value it holds with either himself or his colleagues. He might as well have gotten his PhD in basket-weaving because his chosen research subject is not related to YECism in the least.

This incident reminds me of the scene in Borat where Borat goes to a Penecostal church and pretends to go through some giant conversion, speaking in tongues and everything. But the joke wasn't on him. It was on the church leaders that he was fooling. I can't help but think Ross' supervisors were similarly left standing there foolishly when they handed over Ross' diploma.

 

[laptoppop]

It is a serious ethical issue. Its a no-win scenario for creationists. If the degree is earned at a place that accepts creationism - such as ICR, then people discount the degree, and claim the creationist couldn't possibly really know about modern biology and evolutionary theory.

If the person honestly fights the creationist fight at other schools - they probably won't get the degree. How many times around here are creationists called various forms of uneducated/ignorant/stupid? The schools are no different.

If the person remains quiet and does research, reporting results in line with the TOE worldview and interpretational model - then they are lying/misleading.

So the only folks that can speak with credibility on YEC end up being folks that get their PhD from a respected university honestly believing the TOE, then have a conversion experience and turn to the YEC viewpoint.

Catch-22.

 

[Mallon]

So the only folks that can speak with credibility on YEC end up being folks that get their PhD from a respected university honestly believing the TOE, then have a conversion experience and turn to the YEC viewpoint.

The issue here that I'm trying to focus on is the fact that Ross did not have a "conversion experience." He went through his entire PhD knowing that he would never accept the science he was publishing in his thesis. Do you see that as cognitive dissonance?

 

[Galle]

It is a serious ethical issue. Its a no-win scenario for creationists. If the degree is earned at a place that accepts creationism - such as ICR, then people discount the degree, and claim the creationist couldn't possibly really know about modern biology and evolutionary theory.

If the person honestly fights the creationist fight at other schools - they probably won't get the degree. How many times around here are creationists called various forms of uneducated/ignorant/stupid? The schools are no different.

If you earn a degree at a diploma mill, then of course honest people are going to discount the degree. This isn't particular to creationists.

If it were possible to honestly "fight the creationist fight", then a creationist student would be able to do actual research related to an actual theory of creationism and subsequently publish in peer-reviewed science journals. If a creationist student finds this impossible and instead argues for creationism by knowingly misrepresenting evolution (in the mistaken belief that attacking evolution somehow validates creationism), then why on Earth would he deserve a degree for that?

If a creationist does research and reports results that support evolution or contradict creationism, yet believes in creationism anyway, how honest can this belief possibly be?

and creationists are being persecuted.You're being silly, laptoppop. If the schools treat creationism as a disproved hypothesis, you need to consider the possibility that this is because creationism is a disproved hypothesis rather than immediately jumping to the conclusion that universities are biased

You might as well complain about the treatment that believers in perpetual motion machines get:

Its a no-win scenario for perpetual motion mechanics. If the degree is earned at a place that accepts perpetual motion, then people discount the degree. If the person honestly fights the perpetual motion fight at actual, accredited schools - they probably won't get the degree. If the person remains quiet and does conventional research for orthodox physics even as he believes in perpetual motion machines, then he is lying/misleading.

Catch-22
​

Aww, those poor perpetual motion mechanics. ;_;

 

[juvenissun]

Ross did not believe a word he was writing. He has since gone on to become a biology/chemistry professor at Liberty university, proudly touting the "PhD" next to his name.

We are able to study sciences (even in a secular way) is because God gives us wisdom to do that (notice no other species could do the same?). There is nothing wrong to study and to understand the science in OT's, TE's or atheist's way. It is pure logic exercises based on real data.

However, we have to know, no science is perfect. One does not have to sacrifice one's faith to believe in science. Because science is simply not believable. Dr. Ross studies and teaches science but does not believe it, it is absolutely normal. I do the same. I could be satisfied (mostly due to the time limit) with the logic system I built up, but I don't have to think the system is true. Only people who do not understand the nature of science would feel the conflict between the two. Any science, if we studied it to the end, the result is an unknown. There is nothing to believe in.

Some people studied evolution and walked away from God. Some others studied the same evolution and became Christian. Evolution (other sciences as well) is simply a broken logic system that strings up abundant data. If one understood that, then it has nothing to do with faith.

 

[Mallon]

However, we have to know, no science is perfect. One does not have to sacrifice one's faith to believe in science. Because science is simply not believable. Dr. Ross studies and teaches science but does not believe it, it is absolutely normal. I do the same. I could be satisfied (mostly due to the time limit) with the logic system I built up, but I don't have to think the system is true. Only people who do not understand the nature of science would feel the conflict between the two. Any science, if we studied it to the end, the result is an unknown. There is nothing to believe in.

I think this paragraph is the one that bothered me the most.
What about science is unbelievable, exactly? And if it is unbelievable, why waste your time studying and teaching it? I find the concept of flying, purple elephants unbelievable, and I could never bring myself to teach that such things exist. In fact, if I truly believed that there was no such thing as flying, purple elephants, and that such a belief could be damaging to the faith of others, is it not unethical of me to teach that such things exist?

 

[archaeologist]

the only thing to say here to mallon and those who agree with him is:

'they who are without sin, cast the first stone'

you are living in a glass house in which does not allow you to criticize those who do differently than you.

 

[Mallon]

I can't tell whether you are replying to the OP or not, archie, but I should probably point out that if you are, I still have you on ignore, so I won't be replying to your posts here. Sorry.
(And no, it has nothing to do with my being intimidated or flustered.)

 

[archaeologist]

your loss

 

[laptoppop]

The issue here that I'm trying to focus on is the fact that Ross did not have a "conversion experience." He went through his entire PhD knowing that he would never accept the science he was publishing in his thesis. Do you see that as cognitive dissonance?

No, as I said - it is a serious ethical issue -- very much a catch-22.

 

[Mallon]

No, as I said - it is a serious ethical issue -- very much a catch-22.

I suppose it is a bit of a catch-22 for YECs. It's a toss-up between getting a PhD in creationism at an unaccredited university, or hanging up your beliefs while you persue a PhD at an accredited university.
What do you suppose is the lesser of two evils?

 

[laptoppop]

If you earn a degree at a diploma mill, then of course honest people are going to discount the degree. This isn't particular to creationists.

This is exactly the attitude I was talking about -- you seem to be saying that any institution (such as ICR) who grants higher degrees and yet affirms YEC is a diploma mill. http://www.icr.edu/index.html What part of this would you call a diploma mill? The faculty? The course requirements? The accreditation?

If it were possible to honestly "fight the creationist fight", then a creationist student would be able to do actual research related to an actual theory of creationism and subsequently publish in peer-reviewed science journals.

In light of the previous attitude, the YEC scholastic community has had to create its own peer-reviewed journals. The rigorousness and quality is getting better all the time.

If a creationist student finds this impossible and instead argues for creationism by knowingly misrepresenting evolution (in the mistaken belief that attacking evolution somehow validates creationism), then why on Earth would he deserve a degree for that?

This statement assumes evolution is true and that anything against it is misrepresenting evolution.

If a creationist does research and reports results that support evolution or contradict creationism, yet believes in creationism anyway, how honest can this belief possibly be?

There are actually many many research topics, even in geology and paleontology that can be pursued that do not "contradict" either viewpoint. You are also assuming no valid research could possibly support creationism.

and creationists are being persecuted.You're being silly, laptoppop.

Your own attitude in this very post demonstrates the common attitude toward creationism. And no, I'm not being "silly".

If the schools treat creationism as a disproved hypothesis, you need to consider the possibility that this is because creationism is a disproved hypothesis rather than immediately jumping to the conclusion that universities are biased

You might as well complain about the treatment that believers in perpetual motion machines get:

Its a no-win scenario for perpetual motion mechanics. If the degree is earned at a place that accepts perpetual motion, then people discount the degree. If the person honestly fights the perpetual motion fight at actual, accredited schools - they probably won't get the degree. If the person remains quiet and does conventional research for orthodox physics even as he believes in perpetual motion machines, then he is lying/misleading.

Catch-22
​

Aww, those poor perpetual motion mechanics. ;_;

You precisely demonstrate the attitude. Thanks for making my point for me. Declaring it "disproved" and equating creationism with perpetual motion -- its a very reasonable analogy for the attitude toward creationism in most universities.

 

[laptoppop]

I suppose it is a bit of a catch-22 for YECs. It's a toss-up between getting a PhD in creationism at an unaccredited university, or hanging up your beliefs while you persue a PhD at an accredited university.
What do you suppose is the lesser of two evils?

Actually, there are a few alternatives. ICR is fully accredited. So are many other Christian colleges. My alma-mater (Biola) is regarded quite well in many fields. Of course then people complain "See? All the creationists are coming from second-rate colleges" because they want to see ivy league schools. :: sigh ::

 

[Mallon]

Actually, there are a few alternatives. ICR is fully accredited. So are many other Christian colleges. My alma-mater (Biola) is regarded quite well in many fields. Of course then people complain "See? All the creationists are coming from second-rate colleges" because they want to see ivy league schools. :: sigh ::

Well... I hate to do this to you, but I would be reluctant to acknowledge ICR as having proper accreditation. The late Henry Morris, who founded ICR, was also a board-memeber of TRACS, the very institution that accredited ICR. Bit of conflict of interest there, methinks. (TRACS is not without its controversy, either.) We've gone over this before, though.

Of course, ultimately, none of this matters. What matters is the evidence, not the letters associated with people's names. It should be just a matter of time before the explanatory successes of creation 'science' catch on and replace the dying codger that is evolution... Annny time now...

 

[laptoppop]

Well... I hate to do this to you, but I would be reluctant to acknowledge ICR as having proper accreditation. The late Henry Morris, who founded ICR, was also a board-memeber of TRACS, the very institution that accredited ICR. Bit of conflict of interest there, methinks. (TRACS is not without its controversy, either.) We've gone over this before, though.

Of course, ultimately, none of this matters. What matters is the evidence, not the letters associated with people's names. It should be just a matter of time before the explanatory successes of creation 'science' catch on and replace the dying codger that is evolution... Annny time now...

For those who haven't been around for the earlier discourse -- the ultimate issue is not TRACS, but CHEA. Since CHEA has recognized TRACS, then there is no accreditation issue, except a charge of conflict of interest - without any specific evidence.

 

[Mallon]

For those who haven't been around for the earlier discourse -- the ultimate issue is not TRACS, but CHEA. Since CHEA has recognized TRACS, then there is no accreditation issue, except a charge of conflict of interest - without any specific evidence.

Upon further reading, I see that CHEA did indeed recognize TRACS as a proper accredititation institution. And if I understand correctly, it seems the final nod was given by Education Secretary Lamar Alexander, against the will of his advisory panel. Interesting.

But regardless of the history of TRACS, do you not see a conflict of interest in having Henry Morris sitting on the very committee that accredited the institution he founded (ICR)?