Do creationist care about fake degrees?

[Matthewj1985]

How do you guys feel about Hovind and Baugh's fake degrees? They both have "PhDs" that are from unaccredited schools who will award you a degree for you "life experiences" of course this is also contingent of if your $2000+ check clears. Hovind's "dissertation" is up for all to read and apparently contains tons of spelling and grammatical mistakes as well as a ton of factual errors.

So are creationist ok with this? While some larger groups have come out against these 2 in particular, how do you guys feel about them?

 

[70x7]

Personally for me it doesnt mean squat.
You either learn or you dont. Having a degree saying you accomplished something doesnt mean you are smarter by having one (that goes for accredited institutions as well).
Sure, it is a symbol saying you finished something and I am not saying that the pursuit of an education is worthless as I believe the opposite of that. Im just saying some people feel smarter because a piece of paper says they should.
For me, I dont work in any field of biology or orgin sciences so it wouldnt really get me anywhere. I do like to study it, but the need for a degree? No.

 

[juvenissun]

How do you guys feel about Hovind and Baugh's fake degrees? They both have "PhDs" that are from unaccredited schools who will award you a degree for you "life experiences" of course this is also contingent of if your $2000+ check clears. Hovind's "dissertation" is up for all to read and apparently contains tons of spelling and grammatical mistakes as well as a ton of factual errors.

So are creationist ok with this? While some larger groups have come out against these 2 in particular, how do you guys feel about them?

People made mistakes, include YOU. So, unless their mistake directly related to you, there is not much to talk about. We are not in the position to judge them.

People also make good arguments, include those who made mistakes. YOU could say something positive in this forum, instead of picking other people's mistake.

 

[Chesterton]

How many threads is this now, Matthew? You're a one-man crusade against creationism. Did a creationist get a promotion over you, or steal your girlfriend or something?

 

[laptoppop]

Do YOU care about the fact that a bunch of folks with legitimate degrees are also creationists? Check out the credentials for the faculty at http://www.icr.edu/academics/#faculty
Every faculty member has his/her terminal degree in the field being taught.

 

[Matthewj1985]

People made mistakes, include YOU. So, unless their mistake directly related to you, there is not much to talk about. We are not in the position to judge them.

People also make good arguments, include those who made mistakes. YOU could say something positive in this forum, instead of picking other people's mistake.

I am not the one STILL introducing myself as "Doctor" knowing I got a degree with my credit card. A mistake is flaming someone on a forum, continuing to spread the idea that you are a real doctor is lying.

 

[Biblewriter]

How do you guys feel about Hovind and Baugh's fake degrees? They both have "PhDs" that are from unaccredited schools who will award you a degree for you "life experiences" of course this is also contingent of if your $2000+ check clears. Hovind's "dissertation" is up for all to read and apparently contains tons of spelling and grammatical mistakes as well as a ton of factual errors.

So are creationist ok with this? While some larger groups have come out against these 2 in particular, how do you guys feel about them?

Hovind graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974 Hovind attended Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.). In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado)

Many Bible schools have never sought accredation from the educational community in general, and many of them grant Doctor's degrees. I would consider such a degree totally valid, regardless of what you think of it. Of course, if he were to pretend that this degree meant he had knowledge in other fields, that would be another matter.

Your complaint about Baugh may have more merit. The fact that he is also president of the university that granted his degree sounds suspicious. But the only solid evidence I found concerning it is that "many accuse" Pacific International University "of being a diploma mill." That, by itself, is not very strong evidence, but it bears investigation.

But if this "University" required him to demonstrate an appropriate amount of knowledge, that, in and by itself, would disprove the accusation.

Many men (including myself) have attained high distinction in fields in which they have no formal education, but in which they have taught themselves.

I am a Regiseterd (= licensed) Professional Engineer, even though I do not have an engineering degree. I was able to prove to the State of Ohio that I have knowledge comprable to that gained while earning an engineering degree.

 

[busterdog]

I am not the one STILL introducing myself as "Doctor" knowing I got a degree with my credit card. A mistake is flaming someone on a forum, continuing to spread the idea that you are a real doctor is lying.

OK. Misrepresenting your degree is wrong. I am creationist and I care about it. Of course we do.

Since I am less clear about the particulars of these degrees, I am more concerned about statements that get repeated so often without a great deal of clarity. The thing about the moon dust being too thin is one of those things that doesnt rise to the level of proving anything by itself.

I also care when "weak" is called a "lie." As in, I think these degrees may be "weak", but not "lies." And yes, there is atrocious nonsense represented in some creation science. I dont like it either. But, you seem to find a broader application for the word "lies", which could be worse than having a "weak" degree and considering oneself a doctor.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do YOU care about the fact that a bunch of folks with legitimate degrees are also creationists?

A few even have degrees from respected institutions. Kurt Wise graduated from Harvard, after studying under Stephen Gould, who accepted him as a doctoral student, knowing he was a YE creationist.

Check out the credentials for the faculty at http://www.icr.edu/academics/#faculty
Every faculty member has his/her terminal degree in the field being taught.

Probably not a good example. The ICR requires that you submit a loyalty oath to creationism before even applying at the institution. Compare this with a legitimate school, (like Harvard accepting Kurt Wise) where all that counted was ability.

This is one of the most important differences between creationism and science.

 

[busterdog]

We are ripe for another thread on Expelled.

We all know that fundamentalist Christians are blackballed in many institutions.

I think it is perfectly fine for the Darwinist society or the creationists to have their own exclusive club and publish accordingly. What you see is what you get. They are completely open about it. The Smithsonian, by contrast, purports to be completely open, but is manifestly discriminatory and censors science.

Harvard is welcome to exclude all Republicans and fundamentalist Christians. They just need to be open about and eschew public funding, having adopted their own dogma. Grove City College was granted the right to refuse public funds and "discriminate" despite Title IX. All perfectly legal.

 

[The Barbarian]

We are ripe for another thread on Expelled.

Sounds like fun. Bashing Stein for banning Christian evolutionists from his film ("no intelligence allowed", you betcha) is a nice way to pass the time, but it's been very adequately done.

We all know that fundamentalist Christians are blackballed in many institutions.

Harvard University and Stephen Gould seemed perfectly happy to take a YE creationist as a PhD candidate and to nurture him to his doctorate. And yet, we see that YE institutions won't even accept an application without a promise to accept YE creationism regardless of the facts.

I think it is perfectly fine for the Darwinist society or the creationists to have their own exclusive club and publish accordingly.

What you see is what you get. They are completely open about it.

Stein wasn't. He never came clean about it. He just quietly excluded any Christian who accepted evolution from his film.

The Smithsonian, by contrast, purports to be completely open, but is manifestly discriminatory and censors science.

You are possibly aware that the scientist who made the charges had his complaint dismissed because he lied about being an employee of the Smithsonian? Or that he retained his office even after filing that fake complaint?

Harvard is welcome to exclude all Republicans and fundamentalist Christians.

They have legitimate science departments, and so they don't. The ICR is heavily invested in the false doctrine of creationism, and so they don't tolerate any dissent whatever. That's the key difference.

 

[juvenissun]

Sounds like fun. Bashing Stein for banning Christian evolutionists from his film ("no intelligence allowed", you betcha) is a nice way to pass the time, but it's been very adequately done.

Harvard University and Stephen Gould seemed perfectly happy to take a YE creationist as a PhD candidate and to nurture him to his doctorate. And yet, we see that YE institutions won't even accept an application without a promise to accept YE creationism regardless of the facts.

Stein wasn't. He never came clean about it. He just quietly excluded any Christian who accepted evolution from his film.

You are possibly aware that the scientist who made the charges had his complaint dismissed because he lied about being an employee of the Smithsonian? Or that he retained his office even after filing that fake complaint?

They have legitimate science departments, and so they don't. The ICR is heavily invested in the false doctrine of creationism, and so they don't tolerate any dissent whatever. That's the key difference.

Here is the admission statement of ICR grad school. I don't see what you alleged.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Hovind graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974 Hovind attended Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.). In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado)

Many Bible schools have never sought accredation from the educational community in general, and many of them grant Doctor's degrees. I would consider such a degree totally valid, regardless of what you think of it. Of course, if he were to pretend that this degree meant he had knowledge in other fields, that would be another matter.

Your complaint about Baugh may have more merit. The fact that he is also president of the university that granted his degree sounds suspicious. But the only solid evidence I found concerning it is that "many accuse" Pacific International University "of being a diploma mill." That, by itself, is not very strong evidence, but it bears investigation.

But if this "University" required him to demonstrate an appropriate amount of knowledge, that, in and by itself, would disprove the accusation.

Many men (including myself) have attained high distinction in fields in which they have no formal education, but in which they have taught themselves.

I am a Regiseterd (= licensed) Professional Engineer, even though I do not have an engineering degree. I was able to prove to the State of Ohio that I have knowledge comprable to that gained while earning an engineering degree.

Ok so since I registered online to be ordained in Texas (as a joke) I should fill out paperwork, file taxes and introduce myself as Rev. MatthewJ1985? Patriot has long been known to be a diploma mill, as in you pay a fee, write a paper (don't even turn spell check on) and as long as your check clears you get a degree. Of course the whole education system is in place so that you don't have people in professional positions (doctors, lawyers, engineers, heck even the guy fixing your brakes at the lube joint) in jobs that they are not trained for. I know middle school science students that could mathematically show why hovind's idea of "water above the atmosphere" is absurd.

I am definitely not one to say that education=knowledge but Hovind makes very, very basic scientific mistakes that groups like AiG even shy away from. Count up the number of points hovind uses that AiG specifically tells creationist to stay away from. Would you want people with degrees from degree mills working with you? I have $2000 and I have a lot of "life experience" so do you have any problem driving on a bridge I designed knowing I have zero engineering background? How about letting me do your open heart surgery? I promise I will at least google it first!!!!

 

[Matthewj1985]

OK. Misrepresenting your degree is wrong. I am creationist and I care about it. Of course we do.

Since I am less clear about the particulars of these degrees, I am more concerned about statements that get repeated so often without a great deal of clarity. The thing about the moon dust being too thin is one of those things that doesnt rise to the level of proving anything by itself.

I also care when "weak" is called a "lie." As in, I think these degrees may be "weak", but not "lies." And yes, there is atrocious nonsense represented in some creation science. I dont like it either. But, you seem to find a broader application for the word "lies", which could be worse than having a "weak" degree and considering oneself a doctor.

I would qualify a lie as you trying to play the "moon dust card", me explaining why it isn't valid, and then you, in another thread playing it again knowing full well that it has been proven wrong. Now my definition goes further than most, a lot of other TE's will say that as long as a creationist "really believes" something, they are not lying about it. I disagree, I say that if you put forth something as true, knowing it has been debunked makes you as guilty as any other common lier, no matter how much you believe it to be so.

There are more than a few folks in the creation field with real degrees from real universities who publish real, peer reviewed work (of course they always fall short of the mark when asked to publish on creation). If you have a problem with fake degrees then why not come out against them? Creation is already far off in the margins in the scientific world, you are in the same corner with astrology and other psudoscience, these guys do nothing but set you back. They are to you, what you are to the American Christian movement as a whole.

 

[busterdog]

I would qualify a lie as you trying to play the "moon dust card", me explaining why it isn't valid, and then you, in another thread playing it again knowing full well that it has been proven wrong.

Try reading it again, and then apologize.

Now my definition goes further than most, a lot of other TE's will say that as long as a creationist "really believes" something, they are not lying about it. I disagree, I say that if you put forth something as true, knowing it has been debunked makes you as guilty as any other common lier, no matter how much you believe it to be so.

There are more than a few folks in the creation field with real degrees from real universities who publish real, peer reviewed work (of course they always fall short of the mark when asked to publish on creation). If you have a problem with fake degrees then why not come out against them? Creation is already far off in the margins in the scientific world, you are in the same corner with astrology and other psudoscience, these guys do nothing but set you back. They are to you, what you are to the American Christian movement as a whole.

Consider creationism to be the mission field. When you go into the mission field, you speak their language. Either show some appreciation for our way of thinking, use our terms, find merit in some of our sources, or forget it.

You are not the first evolutionist to try these arguments here. Why exactly should we repeat that debate? What's in it for us? That you have all the answers we need? What you really do, whether you realize it or not, you and the Barbarian, is to confirm what we already believe about these kinds of debates and about the strengths of our own arguments.

Could it possibly be that the Ben Stein issue is a one-sided issue or that the credentials of creation science is a one-sided issue? It certainly seems that you think so. Frankly, that is all the evidence I need to decide how to spend my time. You are welcome to surprise us all and do better any time you wish.

 

[The Barbarian]

http://www.icr.edu/admissions/

Here is the admission statement of ICR grad school. I don't see what you alleged.

Yes, they don't tell you upfront. But from their application...

17. Do you fully agree with the tenets for which this school stands? (see link to tenets at http://icr.edu/instructions)
____Yes ____No If no, please explain: _______________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
22. What is your present belief or understanding regarding the relationship between the Bible and scientific literature as
sources of knowledge about creation?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
23. Have you personally accepted Christ as Savior, and have you committed yourself to the discipline of His Lordship?
Explain.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
24. What church do you attend? Name of the church: _________________________________________
Denomination or other affiliation: _____________________________________________________
Are you a member? __________

So far, if you don't answer these "correctly", you're not even invited for an inverview. Again, compare this kind of thing to Harvard, in which Stephen Gould himself accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral student. As Gould remarked, "all that really matters is ability."

Could it possibly be that the Ben Stein issue is a one-sided issue ...?

Consider the evidence above. It sure looks that way, doesn't it?

 

[busterdog]

Yes, they don't tell you upfront. But from their application...

17. Do you fully agree with the tenets for which this school stands? (see link to tenets at [URL]http://icr.edu/instructions)
____Yes ____No If no, please explain: _______________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
22. What is your present belief or understanding regarding the relationship between the Bible and scientific literature as
sources of knowledge about creation?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
23. Have you personally accepted Christ as Savior, and have you committed yourself to the discipline of His Lordship?
Explain.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
24. What church do you attend? Name of the church: _________________________________________
Denomination or other affiliation: _____________________________________________________
Are you a member? __________

So far, if you don't answer these "correctly", you're not even invited for an inverview. Again, compare this kind of thing to Harvard, in which Stephen Gould himself accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral student. As Gould remarked, "all that really matters is ability."



Consider the evidence above. It sure looks that way, doesn't it?

So, the argument is that ICR is exclusionary, and therefore, Ben Stein's movie was without any merit and no ID scientists have ever been persecuted for their beliefs.

Yeah. OK that follows.

 

[Matthewj1985]

OK. Misrepresenting your degree is wrong. I am creationist and I care about it. Of course we do.

Since I am less clear about the particulars of these degrees, I am more concerned about statements that get repeated so often without a great deal of clarity. The thing about the moon dust being too thin is one of those things that doesnt rise to the level of proving anything by itself.

I also care when "weak" is called a "lie." As in, I think these degrees may be "weak", but not "lies." And yes, there is atrocious nonsense represented in some creation science. I dont like it either. But, you seem to find a broader application for the word "lies", which could be worse than having a "weak" degree and considering oneself a doctor.

Maybe your definition is too liberal. Do you hold creationist to the same standard of "lie" that you hold everything else? I do and I tend to see a lot of creationist as frauds simply because a good number of them (Hovind in particular) refuse to change their "act" in light of corrections or new evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1uFD-eAqX8&feature=channel_page

For instance, he alludes here to the idea that neanderthals man was simply 900 years old and his face just kept on growing.

What he fails to mention is that recently we have found out that neanderthal man is actually not even on the human evolutionary branch. This means that not only was the neanderthal not human, but it never would have been. So assuming Kent gets science journals in prison, when he gets out, if he keeps using this line (or just the fact that his son is keeping up the "show" and probably using it) then he would be more of a lier.

Also how can a degree be "weak"? If your entire schooling process consists of you writing one paper, swiping your credit card and getting a degree, then it is a lie, not just weak. Also the fact that the school he used was not even accredited speaks volumes. Honestly though that isn't the point, I would be less likely to call Mr. Hovind out on this if he had actually earned his degree in "creation science" like real scientest earn degrees in real fields. I have zero respect for his little end run and would never in a million years call him "doctor" because he is no more a doctor than I am the pope.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, the argument is that ICR is exclusionary,

And that universities are tolerant.

and therefore, Ben Stein's movie was without any merit

No. It merely points out that Stein, like most creationists, does not tolerate dissent when it is in his power to suppress it, while schools like Harvard welcome YE creationists like Kurt Wise, because they are tolerant.

and no ID scientists have ever been persecuted for their beliefs.

As in "you can't come to our school, unless you are a creationist" kind of thing? Don't know. Does the ICR admit IDers?

We know that Creationists persecute people who don't agree with them. But as you see, scientists generally don't do that. Creationism is clearly guilty. But you haven't shown us that science is.

 

[Biblewriter]

a lot of other TE's will say that as long as a creationist "really believes" something, they are not lying about it. I disagree, I say that if you put forth something as true, knowing it has been debunked makes you as guilty as any other common lier, no matter how much you believe it to be so.

You totally forget the fact that just because you think you have successfully "debunked" an argument does not mean that you have really done it.

Every argument for evolution has been thoroughly debunked again and again, but the evolutionists simply refuse to admit that their ideas have been disproven.

They why do you call it a "lie" when a creationist does what you yourself do?