creationist credentials

[flaja]

There has been some talk here in another thread of Kent Hovind’s academic credentials. But, do people like Hovind have any real choice when it comes to their education? Do we have any legitimately Christian colleges that can train Creationists in fields like geology and paleontology? Why is that we have to have people like Duane Gish write books on fossils when he is a biochemist rather than a geologist or paleontologist?

My biology degree comes from Emory University, which is supposedly a Methodist school. However, Emory is an extremely liberal school and I was not treated fairly by the school’s biology faculty since I am a Creationist. I seriously doubt that any Creationists would ever get a fair shake in any of the schools that are acceptable by the world’s standards. So what choice do Creationists have except to work in fields for which they are not formally trained or to study on their own and invent their credentials?

 

[The Lady Kate]

There has been some talk here in another thread of Kent Hovind’s academic credentials. But, do people like Hovind have any real choice when it comes to their education?

They can choose to get one at a real school, then use the research skills they have learned there to dispute the conclusions from the facts presented there.

Do we have any legitimately Christian colleges that can train Creationists in fields like geology and paleontology?

First of all, what would you consider "Legitimately Christian"?

Second of all, assume for a moment that there are none, or at least, very few and far between... That may mean something.

Why is that we have to have people like Duane Gish write books on fossils when he is a biochemist rather than a geologist or paleontologist?

It may be that the vast majority of geologists and paleontologists... those who have the most knowledge in the fields that are of the most relevence to Creationism... are not themselves Creationists.

Again... that can be very telling.

My biology degree comes from Emory University, which is supposedly a Methodist school. However, Emory is an extremely liberal school and I was not treated fairly by the school’s biology faculty since I am a Creationist.

If you were a flat-earther, the geology department wouldn't have treated you fairly either... Geocentricism is not given a fair shake in the Astoronomy classes either... And the Med school would not give much time to a student who proposed laying of hands as a valid treatment.

Again...this may tell you something.

I seriously doubt that any Creationists would ever get a fair shake in any of the schools that are acceptable by the world’s standards.

So... are you asking for schools that are not acceptable by the world's standards? Looks like people like Hovind found an answer to that.

So what choice do Creationists have except to work in fields for which they are not formally trained or to study on their own and invent their credentials?

The choice to accept that maybe, just maybe, there's a legitimate reason why Creationism is not accepted... as well as the choice to not invent bogus credentials.

 

[gluadys]

So what choice do Creationists have except to work in fields for which they are not formally trained or to study on their own and invent their credentials?

Creationists can and have received formal scientific training in relevant fields. Kurt Wise comes to mind as a trained paleontologist. I know a formally trained biologist who is a creationist too.

So there is no need to invent credentials or to work outside one's own field.

What they will discover, however, is that their education and credentials do not help them support creationism.

 

[notto]

If you are expecting schools to educate you on falsified theories or expecting them to accept your ideas on already falsified theories what exactly is your interest in science anyways?

What you are asking for is directly opposed to scientific method. It is silly to expect equal time or respect for that which is not scientific and that does not follow from objective and repeatable evidence.

You won't get valid credentials as a scientsts unless you actually do science in the program.

Young earth creationism is a falsified idea. You should not expect to see it in any real science courses any more than ether theory of discussions of earth, wind, water, and fire as core elements of all matter.

My guess is that what you consider unfair treatment is simply scientists and professors doing what they are paid to do. They are paid to stop the propagation of falsified ideas and to educate you in ideas that are scientific and valid in their field.

If you were in a college level biology class and expected class attention or professor time to be spent on anything related to creationism then you are in the wrong program.

 

[shernren]

The only persecution that creationists really receive is persecution from the reality of our physical universe. If creationists could demonstrate that their theories were scientifically plausible - which they themselves argue that they can do, even though they can't - then no evolutionist would have any problem with giving them any credential in the field of their work.

As it is, they can't prove their conclusions from the physical evidence at hand. And that's hardly our fault. We didn't create the universe, and we agree on Who did, so lodge the complaint with Him!

 

[Dannager]

However, Emory is an extremely liberal school and I was not treated fairly by the school’s biology faculty since I am a Creationist.

You were treated fairly. You were probably treated in the same way that a student walking into a math class claiming 2+2=5 would be treated: with deserved ridicule. If you claim something that is frighteningly wrong and refuse to correct your views no matter how much evidence you are exposed to, you deserve everything you get.

 

[flaja]

They can choose to get one at a real school, then use the research skills they have learned there to dispute the conclusions from the facts presented there.

In the absence of any better alternative, this is what I would suggest, but it does make it too easy for charlatans to gain a following.

First of all, what would you consider "Legitimately Christian"?

Apart from the rampant anti-Semitism, which I saw as graffiti everywhere during the 1st Gulf War, my main objective to Emory is its feminism and the fact that the faculty (even the religion faculty) do not accept the Bible for what I take it to be- a legitimate historical record.

It may be that the vast majority of geologists and paleontologists... those who have the most knowledge in the fields that are of the most relevence to Creationism... are not themselves Creationists.

But that’s my entire point- why don’t we have schools that can train Creationists to be professional geologists, astronomers, paleontologists, physicists et cetera? Why do we have Creationists who want to explain these branches of science to everyone, but so few are interested in going to school to be professionally trained in these fields?

I wonder, of all the science professionals that are now Creationists, what proportion of them were Creationists before they entered college? How many university trained Creationists become Creationists only after they entered or graduated from College?

So... are you asking for schools that are not acceptable by the world's standards? Looks like people like Hovind found an answer to that.

In a way I do value the world’s opinion when it comes to verifying academic work. As a one time Christian school teacher, I have seen too many unaccredited K-12 schools that don’t bother to teach kids to read or write. I value having an outside authority, but I realize that an outside authority can make you jump through too many hoops in order to gain its approval.

The choice to accept that maybe, just maybe, there's a legitimate reason why Creationism is not accepted... as well as the choice to not invent bogus credentials.

This explains why Creationists have such a difficult time being trained in secular schools, but it doesn’t explain why Creationists do not establish their own schools that are just as academically rigorous as secular schools are.

 

[Dannager]

But that’s my entire point- why don’t we have schools that can train Creationists to be professional geologists, astronomers, paleontologists, physicists et cetera?

Because you cannot train someone to participate in a field in which they do not believe. Imagine trying to train an engineer who believes that gravity works the opposite of how it actually does, and refuses to believe otherwise no matter how many times he doesn't float off into space. Imagine teaching computer science to someone who refuses to debug. Imagine teaching mathematics to someone who has convinced himself that subtraction is a lie. It's impossible.

 

[flaja]

Creationists can and have received formal scientific training in relevant fields. Kurt Wise comes to mind as a trained paleontologist. I know a formally trained biologist who is a creationist too.

Men like Wise are likely the exception rather than the rule. What about Carl Baugh

 

[flaja]

You were treated fairly. You were probably treated in the same way that a student walking into a math class claiming 2+2=5 would be treated: with deserved ridicule. If you claim something that is frighteningly wrong and refuse to correct your views no matter how much evidence you are exposed to, you deserve everything you get.

At Emory I took a course on evolutionary biology. The course required a term paper. When the professor found out that I was a Creationists and would not write a paper that accepted evolution as fact she told me that I would have to let another member of the biology faculty grade it because she herself wouldn’t be able to objectively grade it because she was an Evolutionist.

We had the option of preparing a first draft for comments. I did this and the reviewer didn’t suggest a grade, but neither did he/she say anything that suggested that I would get a bad grade. So imagine my surprise when my paper received a D. Supposedly my paper didn’t influence my course grade, but without the paper I had a C homework grade, a B class exam grade and I received a B on the final exam- but my course grade was D.

So tell me how I was not treated unfairly.

 

[Dannager]

At Emory I took a course on evolutionary biology. The course required a term paper. When the professor found out that I was a Creationists and would not write a paper that accepted evolution as fact she told me that I would have to let another member of the biology faculty grade it because she herself wouldn’t be able to objectively grade it because she was an Evolutionist.

Then you were treated better than you could have been. As a member of the faculty your professor has an obligation to instruct you properly on the tenets of evolutionary biology, and then to assess your understanding of the material. If your term paper ignores the material presented due to your personal beliefs, you deserve a failing grade. If I were your professor I would have made it clear to you that the term paper is designed to measure your ability to understand the material and that you would receive a failing grade if you did not demonstrate such an understanding.

We had the option of preparing a first draft for comments. I did this and the reviewer didn’t suggest a grade, but neither did he/she say anything that suggested that I would get a bad grade. So imagine my surprise when my paper received a D.

Again, you should have expected this. A term paper that does not demonstrate your understanding of the material does not deserve a passing grade. It is the same as if an English Literature student wrote a term paper on a book the course didn't cover.

Supposedly my paper didn’t influence my course grade, but without the paper I had a C homework grade, a B class exam grade and I received a B on the final exam- but my course grade was D.

That would be a matter to bring up with the school's oversight group. I know that if my professor awarded me a grade significantly lower than what the syllabus promised with my scores, I would be talking to a dean the next day, demanding to get my grade corrected. Did you do that? If not, why not?

So tell me how I was not treated unfairly.

I already have.

 

[flaja]

Then you were treated better than you could have been. As a member of the faculty your professor has an obligation to instruct you properly on the tenets of evolutionary biology, and then to assess your understanding of the material.

What right does a professor have to indoctrinate their students? The fact that the professor said that she could not objectively grade the paper of someone, whose worldview is diametrically opposed to hers, shows an utter lack of respect on her part.

And how do you explain the fact that I was mislead about the grade the paper would receive?

 

[shernren]

At Emory I took a course on evolutionary biology. The course required a term paper. When the professor found out that I was a Creationists and would not write a paper that accepted evolution as fact she told me that I would have to let another member of the biology faculty grade it because she herself wouldn’t be able to objectively grade it because she was an Evolutionist.

We had the option of preparing a first draft for comments. I did this and the reviewer didn’t suggest a grade, but neither did he/she say anything that suggested that I would get a bad grade. So imagine my surprise when my paper received a D. Supposedly my paper didn’t influence my course grade, but without the paper I had a C homework grade, a B class exam grade and I received a B on the final exam- but my course grade was D.

So tell me how I was not treated unfairly.

What exactly was your term paper about? Were you able to demonstrate, before using a creationist viewpoint in the paper (which I assume you did), that the evolutionary paradigm is insufficient and unsatisfactory for explaining the biological evidence we currently have for it, and that the creationist paradigm is both falsifiable and better for explaining the evidence than an evolutionist paradigm?

I agree that it would have been wrong for the professor to not be able to objectively grade your paper. If the evidence you put forth supported your conclusions then it should have passed, and the degree to which your evidence supported your conclusions (without being contradictory to other known facts) should have determined your grade - while if the evidence you put forth did not, you should have failed.

(Dannager, I think it would be better to get him to answer these questions himself and see from his own answers what the fuss is about, than to try to hammer it in that creationism is wrong. A lecturer who can't convince a student that evolution has the best biological explanation for our currently observed biodiversity obviously isn't doing his/her job well, and adding merely your say-so on top of theirs probably isn't going to make much of a difference. Evolution is supportable by evidence; why resort to rhetoric?)

 

[notto]

The fact that the professor said that she could not objectively grade the paper of someone, whose worldview is diametrically opposed to hers, shows an utter lack of respect on her part.

That's not what you said happened. You said that she found out that you would be writing a paper that does not accept evolution. That is a scientific point of view, not a worldview. You basically admitted that you were writing a paper that demonstrated that you didn't accept science or that you were writing one about your supposed worldview and not about the science or topic of the class.

I think the professor was doing you a favor by suggesting you let somebody else grade it.

Your position is like witting a paper in astrophysics class that does not accept or cover laws of gravity. It would be off topic, out of context, full of errors and falsified notions, and worthy of a poor grade.

 

[sfs]

This explains why Creationists have such a difficult time being trained in secular schools, but it doesn’t explain why Creationists do not establish their own schools that are just as academically rigorous as secular schools are.

The problem is that you are asking for academically rigorous instruction in a field that lacks academic rigor. Instruction in mainstream science can be rigorous because there is are consistent, coherent theories in each field, along with large amounts of data that the theories explain, along with a body of practical knowledge about how to carry out research in that field. Creationism, on the other hand, does not have a consistent theory: no outline of what happened when, and how the various events explain the biological and geological data. (This absence of a real theory of creationism has been pointed out by Kurt Wise, by the way.) How do you make creationist predictions about genetic data, say, or geological strata? There is literally nothing to teach in a rigorous creationist science course.

 

[flaja]

What exactly was your term paper about? Were you able to demonstrate, before using a creationist viewpoint in the paper (which I assume you did), that the evolutionary paradigm is insufficient and unsatisfactory for explaining the biological evidence we currently have for it, and that the creationist paradigm is both falsifiable and better for explaining the evidence than an evolutionist paradigm?

The professor did not give anything in the way of guidelines for the paper’s topic other than it had to be about evolution. My thesis was that evolution is not a proven fact, only a theory that is based on inconsistent evidence that is often manipulated into a forced fit within the theory. I have met some science teachers (since college) that do concede this point, but this particular professor was adamant that evolution was fact and not a theory.

I agree that it would have been wrong for the professor to not be able to objectively grade your paper. If the evidence you put forth supported your conclusions then it should have passed, and the degree to which your evidence supported your conclusions (without being contradictory to other known facts) should have determined your grade - while if the evidence you put forth did not, you should have failed.

I sent a copy of the paper to Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice and was told that the paper deserved the grade it was given. But I also sent a copy of the paper to the Institute for Creation Research and was told the paper deserved at least a C. But at any rate, if I had been given constructive criticism when I turned in the 1st draft and if my paper had been graded objectively, I would have had an opportunity to make improvements and maybe could have turned that C into an A.

 

[flaja]

That's not what you said happened. You said that she found out that you would be writing a paper that does not accept evolution. That is a scientific point of view, not a worldview.

We had to submit our topic to the professor for her pre-approval. Never before or after in College did a professor demand this much control over a paper topic. This shows that this professor did not want her worldview challenged.

 

[flaja]

Creationism, on the other hand, does not have a consistent theory.

Tell me what some of the inconsistencies in Creationist theory are. And don’t simply say that there are inconsistencies because you are trying to explain multiple Creationist models all at once.

BTW: Can you give me a list of the Creationist books that you have read?

 

[Melethiel]

We had to submit our topic to the professor for her pre-approval. Never before or after in College did a professor demand this much control over a paper topic. This shows that this professor did not want her worldview challenged.

I've had tons of classes that required pre-approval of topics (the majority, in fact)...this is to ensure that the paper is at least somewhat related to the class material.

 

[shernren]

We had to submit our topic to the professor for her pre-approval. Never before or after in College did a professor demand this much control over a paper topic. This shows that this professor did not want her worldview challenged.

Or, you know, so that the professor could read up on your topics ahead of time so that s/he has extra background in the relevant topic to give you a more accurate assessment.

Or, so that the professor can answer departmental queries about assessments with more than a "uh, yeah, they're all doing term papers. On I don't know what."

Or, so that the professor can warn students ahead of time if their topics are contentious or vacuous, manage the scope of the topic, and provide additional information if students founder during research.

Or, just to avoid surprises - a student who has at least narrowed down the topic is likely to be able to finish the paper within a few all-nighters, so that at least the paper is completed even if it's shoddy.

I've seen plenty of assessments where I (or my team) was allowed free rein within a pre-approved topic, which included the ethics of piracy in college, and public perception of global warming, investigating the kinetics and energetics of water-bottle rockets, investigating the physical properties of sea-water as a function of temperature, and factorization in various fields in first year uni. I don't consider the practice unusual at all. And, paranoia doesn't help your credibility.

The professor did not give anything in the way of guidelines for the paper’s topic other than it had to be about evolution. My thesis was that evolution is not a proven fact, only a theory that is based on inconsistent evidence that is often manipulated into a forced fit within the theory. I have met some science teachers (since college) that do concede this point, but this particular professor was adamant that evolution was fact and not a theory.

Were the "science teachers" who conceded this point actually scientists? There's a fundamental difference there. I've had physics teachers who were inaccurate about Newton's Third Law and chemistry teachers who couldn't succinctly explain sublimation. Didn't make them bad science teachers per se, but certainly they wouldn't be mistaken for people who actually do work in the field.

Also, give some examples of the "inconsistent evidence that is often manipulated into a forced fit within the theory". In particular, what leads you to consider their fit "forced"?

(Essentially, I want to see what your paper actually contained, because I don't want to judge whether or not the assessment was fair without actually knowing the content assessed.)