Strict Biblical Constructionist gets Earth Science PHD from URI

headscratcher4

Philosopher
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
7,776
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/s...&en=d6803b73375ee4bc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Need to register.

An interesting story in the NYTimes about a strict Biblical constructionist...young earther...who is receiving his PhD in Eart Science from the University of Rhode Island. He believes the bible. He has played the "science" game to get his PhD...I.e. none of his earth science work goes after evolution or Darwin, as such....but, he will soon be using his PhD, it seems, to promote creationist and young earth as a "scientist".

I read it, it seemed a little dishonorable to me... the idea that he's essentially persued a scientific education that he seemingly inherently rejects to get a "credential"....
 
Yeah, well turnabout is fair play. I'm an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church!
http://www.themonastery.org/

You should apply for a job at Liberty University or Bob Jones University.

Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules

By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: February 12, 2007

KINGSTON, R.I. — There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island.

His subject was the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. The work is “impeccable,” said David E. Fastovsky, a paleontologist and professor of geosciences at the university who was Dr. Ross’s dissertation adviser. “He was working within a strictly scientific framework, a conventional scientific framework.”

But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.

Okay, so he wrote his dissertation, but doesn't believe his own writing.

And, for some, his case raises thorny philosophical and practical questions. May a secular university deny otherwise qualified students a degree because of their religion? Can a student produce intellectually honest work that contradicts deeply held beliefs? Should it be obligatory (or forbidden) for universities to consider how students will use the degrees they earn?

Those are “darned near imponderable issues,” said John W. Geissman, who has considered them as a professor of earth and planetary sciences at the University of New Mexico. For example, Dr. Geissman said, Los Alamos National Laboratory has a geophysicist on staff, John R. Baumgardner, who is an authority on the earth’s mantle — and also a young earth creationist.

If researchers like Dr. Baumgardner do their work “without any form of interjection of personal dogma,” Dr. Geissman said, “I would have to keep as objective a hat on as possible and say, ‘O.K., you earned what you earned.’ ”

Others say the crucial issue is not whether Dr. Ross deserved his degree but how he intends to use it.

In a telephone interview, Dr. Ross said his goal in studying at secular institutions “was to acquire the training that would make me a good paleontologist, regardless of which paradigm I was using.”

Today he teaches earth science at Liberty University, the conservative Christian institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell where, Dr. Ross said, he uses a conventional scientific text.
...
But he has also written and spoken on scientific subjects, and with a creationist bent. While still a graduate student, he appeared on a DVD arguing that intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, is a better explanation than evolution for the Cambrian explosion, a rapid diversification of animal life that occurred about 500 million years ago.

Online information about the DVD identifies Dr. Ross as “pursuing a Ph.D. in geosciences” at the University of Rhode Island. It is this use of a secular credential to support creationist views that worries many scientists.

Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a private group on the front line of the battle for the teaching of evolution, said fundamentalists who capitalized on secular credentials “to miseducate the public” were doing a disservice.
...
Michael L. Dini, a professor of biology education at Texas Tech University, goes even further. In 2003, he was threatened with a federal investigation when students complained that he would not write letters of recommendation for graduate study for anyone who would not offer “a scientific answer” to questions about how the human species originated.

Nothing came of it, Dr. Dini said in an interview, adding, “Scientists do not base their acceptance or rejection of theories on religion, and someone who does should not be able to become a scientist.”
....
Perhaps the most famous creationist wearing the secular mantle of science is Kurt P. Wise, who earned his doctorate at Harvard in 1989 under the guidance of the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, a leading theorist of evolution who died in 2002.

Dr. Wise, who teaches at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., wrote his dissertation on gaps in the fossil record. But rather than suggest, as many creationists do, that the gaps challenge the wisdom of Darwin’s theory, Dr. Wise described a statistical approach that would allow paleontologists to infer when a given species was present on earth, millions of years ago, even if the fossil evidence was incomplete.

Dr. Wise, who declined to comment for this article, is a major figure in creationist circles today, and his Gould connection appears prominently on his book jackets and elsewhere.
...
Asked whether it was intellectually honest to write a dissertation so at odds with his religious views, he said: “I was working within a particular paradigm of earth history. I accepted that philosophy of science for the purpose of working with the people” at Rhode Island.

And though his dissertation repeatedly described events as occurring tens of millions of years ago, Dr. Ross added, “I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates.”
...
But Dr. Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views “so at variance with what we consider standard science.” She said such students “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.”

That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”

Dr. Dini, of Texas Tech, agreed. Scientists “ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science,” he said. “That’s what Ph.D. stands for.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/s...&en=d6803b73375ee4bc&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Ross is a confused individual.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'll at least give it to him for getting a real degree rather than something from a degree mill or a shoddy online program. Not to say that a real education can't be gotten in a mostly online course, I'll just refrain from bashing the certain sleaze online school I usually do.
 
It is very risky to play science. It infects the way you think. Sooner or latter is is likely he will crack.
 
Agreed, I do not believe the field of science has anything to fear from more people learning science, no matter their intention.
 
Seems like a Good Thing to me. Every time he says "I'm a PhD and I say the earth is 10ka old" we reply "In your PhD you said it was at least 65Ma old." Any wriggling to get out of that is going to look fishy to an unbiased observer.

But it's pretty weird. I had enough trouble getting through 3.5 years of mine when I did believe what I was writing!
 
Agreed, I do not believe the field of science has anything to fear from more people learning science, no matter their intention.

It seems to me that science is the one thing he didn't learn. He learned how to write a thesis, and he learned a bunch of facts that he doesn't believe in. But a fundamental of science is to not have a preconceived notion going into an experiment. A hypothesis, fine, that you can and should have. But you should also have the willingness to discard your hypothesis when the facts show otherwise.

Looks like this man went in with his mind already made up, and learned what he did for the sole purpose of being able to use big scientific words in debates. Whatever he did learn, he did not learn science.
 
Seems like a Good Thing to me. Every time he says "I'm a PhD and I say the earth is 10ka old" we reply "In your PhD you said it was at least 65Ma old." Any wriggling to get out of that is going to look fishy to an unbiased observer.
Isn't lying supposed to against Biblical teaching? I suppose he could always wriggle out of that by claiming that he doesn't believe int he Bible, but that would make his position rather foolish.....
 
I don't really see the problem with this, and think that refusing degrees based on personal belief would be a horrible precident to set.

The nice thing about science is that one's private convictions don't matter, if they aren't backed by data.

So, let's say this guy is a creationist, but manages to publish only within the framework of someone who accepted science as True. So what? His data will still be as good as if he were anyone else.

If he just tries to make stuff up, he won't be able to get things published and will quickly be out of a job.
 
Isn't lying supposed to against Biblical teaching? I suppose he could always wriggle out of that by claiming that he doesn't believe int he Bible, but that would make his position rather foolish.....

This definitely falls under bearing false witness, in my opinion. If nothing else, it should give potential creationists pause for thought if their leaders have to lie in order to appear "respectable".

Marc
 

Back
Top Bottom