And indeed - this is the ethical problem. Some people totally separate faith from their daily lives -- they manage to go to church, and not really apply anything when it comes down to Monday morning. I'm not saying that's what he did. I don't know him, or enough about him. I will absolutely agree that it is an ethical dilemma, and I will again add a bit of a catch-22 for creationists in general.
No, it's not an "ethical" dilemma to me. Right now I'm hardly concerned with
why Dr. Ross did it - I'm more concerned with
how. How do you spend two entire years researching biological and geological processes which according to creationists simply don't take place? I should remind you of what I put forward
here: evolution says that fossils in an area line up in a developmental sequence, leading to living extant species in the same area (assuming there are any), because new species develop from old species. But a global Flood scatters fossils everywhere so that fossils in an area line up in a developmental sequence because ... ?
And this is not a peripheral question. The thesis was on mosasaur fossil distribution in Cretaceous strata. If the global Flood is an actual scientific explanation for their distribution, wouldn't there have been aspects of the distribution that could not be explained from an evolutionary perspective, and wouldn't that mean that Dr. Ross' theory would've been undermined? The examiners would have said "But your theory doesn't explain x.x.x. ...", and Dr. Ross would have had no answer because it really doesn't, and then his PhD wouldn't have been "defensible" as his scientific colleagues insist it was. "They wouldn't have asked questions that undermine evolutionary theory", you'd argue. But they weren't attacking evolutionary theory, they were attacking
Dr. Ross' potential contribution to evolutionary theory (as all PhD graduates undergo). For them the failure of Dr. Ross' theory wouldn't mean the failure of evolution - it would simply mean that they had to wait for the next evolutionary scientist to come along and satisfactorily explain the distribution, and of course that Dr. Ross didn't deserve a PhD.
Think about it. There is no logical necessity for a global Flood to produce fossil distributions that conform to evolutionary theory, since after all there is no reason for hydrological processes over days to simulate evolutionary processes over millenia. You might as well try to toast bread for breakfast in an industrial deep-fat fryer - the two processes simply don't commensurate. And yet here is a professional scientist who spends two years investigating evolution and all he can say at the end is that an evolutionary scenario explains his findings pretty darn well. What does that tell you about the validity of an evolutionary scenario?
He did the work according to their worldview and paradigm. As I've said, I do see an ethical problem with this. However, the creationist position is NOT that evolutionary science is indefensible. It is that the flood/catastrophic model BETTER explains the evidence AND that it is much more consistent with the explicit revelation of a loving omniscient God. There are also problems with it, but that hardly means that work cannot be done within that paradigm that is defensible within that paradigm. For example, the review board would not challenge the dates of the strata -- unless he used YEC dates.
Correct. Each paradigm explains the physical evidence. Just because it explains it does not mean it is right. For example, I am typing on a laptop computer in my lap. I could have picked it up and put it in my lap, or my wife could have handed it to me. Two theories, each completely adequate in explaining the observed data.
As I've just pointed out, alternative theories can each explain the same data.
Ahh, but you have contradicted yourself. In the first paragraph (of the above quotation), you say that one paradigm ("flood/catastrophic") explains the data
better than the other. In the next two paragraphs, you say that both paradigms explain the
same data. Now that just doesn't work. Let me show you, following on from your example. Suppose you maintain that you picked up your laptop computer and put it in your lap. I think you didn't.
I say, "The theory that your wife picked it up and put it in your lap better explains the evidence."
"How so?" you ask.
"Well, your wife's fingerprints are on the laptop. So she must have picked it up recently."
But see? I am not proposing that the "wife" theory explains data
better. Really, I am proposing that it explains
more data: i.e. the "wife" theory explains your wife's fingerprints, while your theory doesn't.
"She was using the laptop just before me. That's why her fingerprints are on the laptop. That doesn't show that she put it in my lap."
"But there are none of her fingerprints on the latch of the laptop, showing that she never opened it. Doesn't that show that her fingerprints on the laptop show that she put it in your lap?"
Again, my theory really doesn't explain the data "better". If it were still at fingerprints on the laptop both theories would explain an equal amount of data - or, explain data equally. But now it explains
more data - the location of your wife's fingerprints is really more data, that my theory explains and yours doesn't.
You see? If both theories explain the same corpus of data, then one theory cannot be said to explain it "better" than the other. Even creationists will admit it, and contradict themselves in the process:
I then respond, ‘Actually, as a creationist, I have no problem with your science; it’s the same science I understand and trust. The argument is not about science or about facts—ultimately, the argument is about how you interpret the facts—and this depends upon your belief about history. The real difference is that we have different “histories” (accounts about what happened in the past), which we use to interpret the science and facts of the present.’
I then give an example. ‘Let’s consider the science of genetics and natural selection. Evolutionists believe in natural selection—that is real science, as you observe it happening. Well, creationists also believe in natural selection. Evolutionists accept the science of genetics—well, so do creationists.
‘However, here is the difference: Evolutionists believe that, over millions of years, one kind of animal has changed into a totally different kind. However, creationists, based on the Bible’s account of origins, believe that God created separate kinds of animals and plants to reproduce their own kind—therefore one kind will not turn into a totally different kind.
‘Now this can be tested in the present. The scientific observations support the creationist interpretation that the changes we see are not creating new information. The changes are all within the originally created pool of information of that kind; sorting, shuffling or degrading it. The creationist account of history, based on the Bible, provides the correct basis to interpret the evidence of the present—and real science confirms the interpretation.’
(emphases added; from
Searching for the 'magic bullet') In the first paragraph Ham states that the only difference is in
how creationism and evolution interprets the
same set of data, not the
ability of either paradigm. However just two paragraphs after, he supports the origin of kinds by appealing to "scientific observations". But wait a minute! I thought that evolution and common descent can explain the same corpus of data that creationism and the origin of kinds can - in which case, these scientific observations support evolution as well! You see that in order to prefer creationism, Ham has to introduce a set of data ("scientific observations") which cannot be explained by evolution.
So what is it now? Is there a set of data which cannot be interpreted within an evolutionary framework but within a creationist framework? In that case, why isn't mosasaur fossil distribution a part of this set of data? Especially when creationists have previously pointed to other fossil distributions as being a part of that set - there's no reason why mosasaurs should be exempt from being inexplicable by evolution. Or, is there no data at all which creationism attempts to explain which cannot be interpreted within an evolutionary framework? In that case, creationism doesn't explain anything "better than" evolution, and there is no scientific reason to choose it.