Getting a PhD in science to justify Creationist agenda

FaisonMars

Muse
FaisonMars
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
659
There's a story in the NY Times today about a geology PhD student who has done a "legit" science dissertation to get the creditials to push young-earth Creationism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/s...85&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

This seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me, but I have very conflicted feelings about it. On the one hand, if you do good science and publish it, you deserve the credentials, but if you go off the deep end and use your credentials to support unscientific ideas, how was getting the PhD relevant?

And how can someone get an advanced degree in geoscience and still be a fundie?
 
We claims that believing in evolution is just one belief and that other beliefs are equally valid.

He has nothing new to add, he's just confusing the word "belief" with "proof".
 
Where are the properly biblical astromomers agrueing for their right to believe in a geocentric universe?
 
Everyone has the "right" if not the "reason" to believe anything they choose.

Consider this statement:

"I believe that the entire universe is between 6 and 8 centimeters across, and that only one being exists, which surrounds this universe, and that all other beings besides this one are no more than pre-programmed illusions."

I have no reason to believe this statement, but I have the right to. No-one can dictate belief, especially to an educated and independent thinker. Therefore, Biblical astronomers don't have to argue for their right to believe in a geocentric universe; they already have that right.

Just as the rest of us have the right to believe in the truth.

And how can someone get an advanced degree in geoscience and still be a fundamentalist? Easy!

A PhD is as much about successfully arguing an assertion as it is about substantiable facts to support that assertion. Sometimes, the ability to argue a case really is more significant that the merits of that case! Ask any criminal lawyer ... O.J. Simpson's, perhaps...

As far as I know, there is no public university or college in the Free World that will deny a degree or education on the basis of religious belief alone. You can believe any religion or woo-science and still earn a degree, even a PhD!

Ain't freedom wunnerful?

-Fnord of Dyscordia-
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
A PhD is as much about successfully arguing an assertion as it is about substantiable facts to support that assertion. Sometimes, the ability to argue a case really is more significant that the merits of that case! Ask any criminal lawyer ... O.J. Simpson's, perhaps...
Click to expand...

In the case of the dissertation mentioned in the OP, though, the Doctoral candidate was apparently doing sound paleontology. His dissertation even, according to the NY Times article, stated that mosasaurs disappeared 65 million years ago.

The issue is that he was being disingenuous when he wrote that. He really believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
 
tracer said:
The issue is that he was being disingenuous when he wrote that. He really believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Click to expand...

And when he states these young-earch beliefs, he is giving credence to them by also stating that he has a PhD in geosciences from a reputable university. It's just an argument from authority, but it carries weight if it's not challenged.

Perhaps he should be challenged to debate himself and refute his dissertation.
 
Fnord said:
As far as I know, there is no public university or college in the Free World that will deny a degree or education on the basis of religious belief alone. You can believe any religion or woo-science and still earn a degree, even a PhD!
Click to expand...

The thing you are missing is getting a degree in the area you are a woo. For example it does not matter if an electrical engeneer is a holocaust denier and they should not be blocked from getting such a degree. But a historian might well get blocked from such a degree with such a belief.
 
tracer said:
In the case of the dissertation mentioned in the OP, though, the Doctoral candidate was apparently doing sound paleontology. His dissertation even, according to the NY Times article, stated that mosasaurs disappeared 65 million years ago.

The issue is that he was being disingenuous when he wrote that. He really believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Click to expand...
It's been done before.

Will The Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?
 
If the institution had any balls, they'd make his grade for a required class depend on him collecting data and directly computing the age of the Earth from it. He would be forced to either write down the fact he refuses to acknowledge or fail. Either way, science wins.
 
A personal experience...

I took a university class on "Philosophy and the New Age," at the end of which we were required to give a mini-dissertation related to both topics. Mine was "A Philosophical Analysis on the Physical Laws Governing Psychic Phenomena," in which I approached telekinesis, telepathy, and telescience as real and valid abilities.

The paper started off with the words "Assuming that Psychic Phenomena follow a set of physical laws..." and ended with a personal statement of denial in the belief that any of the preceding statements and concl;usions were true.

I received a grade of 3.75 out of 4.00 for the paper itself and 3.90 for the presentation, even when graded "on the curve." I lost points for grammar, spelling, and letting a few fallacies of reason slip in.

The class was great fun, and I learned that all I had to do to pass was to mimic the instructor's methodology and vocabulary, whether or not I believed in what I was saying or doing.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-
 
Last edited:
And the Truth Shall Set You Free ... Well, maybe.

mfaison said:
And how can someone get an advanced degree in geoscience and still be a fundie?
Click to expand...

I believe this document answers that question:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html



The apparent strategy is to 'infiltrate' legitimate scientific circles by their typical deceit until they have sufficient influence to work in concert and return us to the blessed good-old-days of the Dark Ages.

They hope to accomplish this by playing the educational game and answering the questions, saying what they need to say to pass the exams although directly contrary to their true beliefs, only to get the diplomas they need to perform their long-term 'mission' which ends with the compulsory teaching of the beliefs of primitive tribal savages in place of modern science.

Funda-mental-cases are trying to execute the same strategy within the government too. If they win, then they will in turn, execute any people who disagree with them. Thou shalt not suffer a non-fundie to live. Amen.

The just will not accept the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, section 3:
"... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Click to expand...

They simply cannot sell their snake-oil and maintain scientific or any other kind of integrity at the same time.

The last thing religion is about is truth, honesty and least of all, knowledge. No religion could possibly survive very long if it had any genuine respect for those things. Ignorance and fear based on it are the cornerstones of its foundation and power. Remove them, and religion collapses into its well deserved oblivion with all the other myths of old - FREE at last!

A pertinent excerpt from the ID document:
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Click to expand...


Naturally, it must be the Christian religion which, as we all know, is the ONLY true religion. If you don't believe them, ask them. It's a sin to lie and good Christian leaders never lie.

Christian science - the ultimate oxymoron.


*
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
And how can someone get an advanced degree in geoscience and still be a fundamentalist? Easy!

A PhD is as much about successfully arguing an assertion as it is about substantiable facts to support that assertion.
Click to expand...


Er, no. This is almost entirely untrue. A Ph.D. is all about substantiable facts to support whatever assertions the dissertation is about.

However, the facts need to be substantiable. That does't mean that the candidate himself needs to believe in them. I could, for example, write a Ph.D. in theology about the necessity of a single-sex priesthood, supported by well-established lines of reasoning and bolstered by appropriate quotes from the literature. That doesn't mean that I myself believe the "facts" that I'm laying forth. I might, for example, believe that the entire Pauline corpus was an 8th century forgery (I'd be bonkers, but so are creationists).... but even so, my examiners accept the "facts" laid out in the Pauline corpus and would accept my quotations as substantiated and valid.
 
drkitten said:
Er, no. This is almost entirely untrue. A Ph.D. is all about substantiable facts to support whatever assertions the dissertation is about.

However, the facts need to be substantiable. That does't mean that the candidate himself needs to believe in them. I could, for example, write a Ph.D. in theology about the necessity of a single-sex priesthood, supported by well-established lines of reasoning and bolstered by appropriate quotes from the literature. That doesn't mean that I myself believe the "facts" that I'm laying forth. I might, for example, believe that the entire Pauline corpus was an 8th century forgery (I'd be bonkers, but so are creationists).... but even so, my examiners accept the "facts" laid out in the Pauline corpus and would accept my quotations as substantiated and valid.
Click to expand...

I think that there is a difference between science and others in this regard. It reminds me of a friend relating how some other grad students where really worried when two physics grad students got into a serious disagreement about their subject. It was because when this happens in the philosophy department, they have animosity for years later. But this is science, at least one of them is provably wrong, it is not solely about intangible issues.
 
drkitten said:
Er, no. This is almost entirely untrue. A Ph.D. is all about substantiable facts to support whatever assertions the dissertation is about.

However, the facts need to be substantiable. That does't mean that the candidate himself needs to believe in them. I could, for example, write a Ph.D. in theology about the necessity of a single-sex priesthood, supported by well-established lines of reasoning and bolstered by appropriate quotes from the literature. That doesn't mean that I myself believe the "facts" that I'm laying forth. I might, for example, believe that the entire Pauline corpus was an 8th century forgery (I'd be bonkers, but so are creationists).... but even so, my examiners accept the "facts" laid out in the Pauline corpus and would accept my quotations as substantiated and valid.
Click to expand...

The beauty of the process is that if you write that paper, and come back three years later and write a paper claiming the opposite, you will be called on it. Someone will be able to point out that you claimed the opposite years ago, and so will ask you to explain what has changed since then to make you change your mind. Any admissions that "I was only pretending" will expose you as illegit.

That's why this doesn't bother me that much. If his PhD thesis relies on old earth geology, and then he turns around and starts making young earth claims, he can be called on it. "In your thesis, you said X. Now you say Y. Can you provide a reason that you have abandoned your previous position?"

Of course, he cannot. If he says "I never really believed that" than he exposes himself as unreliable.
 
There is an astronomer at Iowa State (Guillermo Gonzalez) who is a creationist. He was exposed in Skeptical Inquirer in 2001 (when he was still a student at U of Washington). At that time, he was leading two lives- he was writing scientific articles for mainstream journals, and creationist articles for fundamentalist magazines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom