Peter McKnight wrote a column in the Vancouver Sun ['Young Earth' creationist stirs a scholarly storm]. He makes a number of points but I'll confine my comments to those that have a direct bearing on the awarding of a geology Ph.D. to someone who believes the Earth is only 10,000 years old. Read more about my position on this issues at [What Is Science].
Ross's advisers described his work as "impeccable" and they therefore had no reason to deny him his doctorate. But many other scientists, including physical anthropologist and U.S. National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott, have expressed concern that Ross would use his doctorate from a secular school "to miseducate the public."
I don’t know what motivates Eugenie Scott but I want to make it clear that this is not something I’m the least bit concerned about. Once a student is awarded a Ph.D. they are perfectly free to do and say whatever they want. I will not deny a student a Ph.D. simply because of what I think they might say once they graduate. What I'm concerned about is awarding the degree in the first place.
Furthermore, the fact that his former advisers saw nothing wrong with what they did is part of the problem. You can't use the fact that they gave him the degree as proof that there was nothing wrong with the process. That's a circular argument.
Scott claims that refusing to admit a doctoral candidate like Ross, whose views "are so at variance with what we consider standard science," would be acceptable because it would amount to discrimination "on the basis of science" rather than because of his personal beliefs.I disagree with Peter McKnight. There is plenty of evidence that something is seriously wrong with the science of someone who believes that the Earth is only 10,000 years old. McKnight, like many others, seems to think that the only thing that counts in a Ph.D. program is what’s written down in a thesis. Not true. Students are also questioned about their understanding of basic concepts and ideas in their chosen field of study. We don’t award Ph.D.’s to students who can’t think on their feet and defend their ideas in an intellectual environment.
While Scott's concerns are understandable given that Ross has already appeared in a video promoting the anti-evolution theory of intelligent design, there's no evidence that there is anything wrong with his science.
It's apparent, then, that Ross's personal beliefs really are the issue here.
We know that Marcus Ross has a flawed understanding of the science of geology and for this reason he does not deserve a Ph.D. in geosciences. We also know that Ross’s flawed understanding is derived from his Christian fundamentalist beliefs. It may seem silly to deny that Ross is not being discriminated against because of his religion but that’s the truth. He should have been discriminated against because of his stupidity and not directly because of his religion.
Does this mean that Ross’s “personal beliefs” are really the issue as Peter McKnight suggests. Well, yes, if by personal beliefs you mean what someone is thinking. When I flunk an undergraduate for not understanding the material in my biochemistry course then I’m definitely making their “personal belief” the issue. What else could it be? Let’s not confuse the examination of a student’s personal understanding of the material with the “personal belief” canard that raises the specter of religious discrimination.
That said, Ross's views present an even greater challenge to religion than to academic institutions. After all, there are only two ways to explain how Ross can simultaneously subscribe to two incompatible belief systems, and neither way is particularly palatable: Either Ross is dishonest, with little interest in witnessing what he believes to be the truth, or he is a relativist, with no belief in truth at all.I disagree. To me the evidence is strongly in favor of outright deception and not “no belief in the truth at all.” Ross fully intended to misrepresent his beliefs in his thesis, and perhaps during the oral exam as well. I’m pretty certain that Ross has created a rationalization in his own mind that justifies this form of cognitive dissonance. In other words, Ross probably doesn’t think that he’s being deceitful—but that’s only because he has taken the time to deceive himself first.
As for being dishonest: If, as he claims, Ross really believes in the Biblical account of creation, then he must also believe that many of the statements in his dissertation are patently false. If the world really is less than 10,000 years old, then mosasaurs couldn't have disappeared 65 million years ago, which means Ross doesn't believe what he wrote.
Ross is cagey on this issue, as he essentially dodged the issue by telling the Times, "I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates." This suggests a kind of agnosticism, and leads to the second way of explaining his incompatible beliefs.
And now it seems that young Earth creationists want a piece of the action. Ross's insistence that there is no conflict between his paleontological and Scriptural beliefs, because he is capable of "separating the different paradigms," reveals that he is a true believer in the Kuhnian revolution.I realize that the logic here seems impeccable, but only if you make the assumption that Ross is speaking the truth when he talks of different paradigms. We all know that the assumption is overly gratuitous. In Ross’s mind there’s only one truth and everything else is false.
But he must then necessarily cease to be a true believer in another very important sense. In accepting that Scripture merely presents one paradigm among many, and that the claims in the Bible are therefore no more or less true than the claims made in any other paradigm, Ross must abandon the belief that the Bible speaks the Truth -- not just the truth relative to a specific conceptual framework, but the truth that exists always and everywhere.
[Hat Tip: John Pieret]
8 comments :
Re Ross
There is another problem here that I notice has not been addressed either on this blog or on other blogs with threads devoted to this subject. That has to do with the possibility of Ross filing a lawsuit if he were denied a PhD solely on the basis of his religious beliefs. That might seem off the wall to a Canadian but take my word for it, given the litigious nature of the land south of the border, that could not at all be ruled out. Once Ross had fulfilled the requirements for the PhD program (i.e. pass his courses and the qualifying exam and found a thesis adviser and a legitimate thesis topic, the only legal grounds for refusing him a PhD would have been an inadequacy in his thesis. If in fact, it were shown that he was denied the degree solely on the basis of his religious beliefs, he very likely would have prevailed in a US court.
I'm sure that's in the back of the minds of supervisors. It probably explains why stupidity that's motivated by religion will get by whereas just plain stupidity won't.
It's a shame that people can use the threat of a lawsuit to get something they don't deserve.
BTW, many of the assumptions in your message are incorrect but I don't have time to correct them.
You can't use the fact that they gave him the degree as proof that there was nothing wrong with the process.
No, but we can sure use it to show that your thinking is not universal in the scientific/educational community, right along with Gould's advising Kurt Wise in his Ph.D. candidacy.
We know that Marcus Ross has a flawed understanding of the science of geology and for this reason he does not deserve a Ph.D. in geosciences.
No we don't. We know that he does not accept the philosophical underpinnings of science but by all accounts he understood the geology quite well. The case you need to make is that you have to accept the philosophy of science in order to get a Ph.D. in it.
You are just asserting without evidence that he did not understand the material, just as you are asserting without evidence that intended to "misrepresent his beliefs in his thesis, and perhaps during the oral exam as well."
I don't know how you can reconcile that behavior with your expressed beliefs in rationalism.
john pieret wrote,
I don't know how you can reconcile that behavior with your expressed beliefs in rationalism.
When we feel very strongly about something, humans are very capable of trying to rationalize our opinions and beliefs. Larry even said that he believes Ross to be doing just that in regards to putting forth ideas in his thesis that doesn't believe in.
Larry,
I'm with John on this. We don't see any evidence that Ross doesn't understand the concepts and mechanics of geology. The evidence from the various stories printed on it say that he doesn't accept the science as leading to truth, which isn't the same as saying he doesn't understand. It seems to me that you might be letting your own opinions of creationists color your perceptions of what the situation is.
That said, it does seem pretty odd to award someone a Ph.D. in science if that person doesn't accept science as a valid way of obtaining true knowledge about the natural world. But how much do we really want gratuate commitees to be the thought police on these matters?
jasontd says,
I'm with John on this. We don't see any evidence that Ross doesn't understand the concepts and mechanics of geology.
He rejects all the evidence for a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Instead, he believes that the universe was created only 10,000 years ago. How much evidence do you want?
But how much do we really want gratuate commitees to be the thought police on these matters?
Please stop with the "thought police" nonsense. It's our job to make sure that someone understands the material properly before they get a passing grade. There's nothing to be gained by calling all Professors "thought police."
He rejects all the evidence for a 4.5 billion year old Earth.
No, he is rejecting the philosophical proposition that methodlogical naturalism delivers truth, especially when compared to something he believes is more reliable. But the evidence is that he knows the facts of the subject area and can apply the method of science.
This is just part and parcel of your rejection of methodological naturalism and insistence that science entails philosophical naturalism.
Could you be tossed out of science because of your refusal to accept the majority position on the philosophy of science? If not, why should Ross be?
(Originally on "What is Science?")
Let me get this straight.
1. Marcus Ross, in order to achieve his PhD in science produces a thesis that is (presumably) consistent with well-established scientific consensus and therefore the conclusion that the Earth is far older than he believes it is.
2. The RIU committee awards Ross a PhD in science based on his thesis and an oral examination which presumably demonstrated his mastery of the field to their satisfaction.
3. Ross acquires a position as "Assistant Professor of Biology" at Liberty University (run by Jerry Falwell), "where he teaches a Christian version of Earth Science and a required course (CRST 290) on the History of Life."
Hmmm. One has to wonder. Just what motivated Ross to bother obtaining a PhD in a SCIENCE that furnishes abundant and overwhelming evidence that completely contradicts his own beliefs? Why isn't his faith sufficient validation for his belief in Young Earth Creationism? If it isn't, does he expect to find scientific evidence to support YEC? If he conducts research with a preconceived aim to validate the "hypothesis" of YEC, would he expect his PhD to validate his interpretations of such evidence as scientific?
Whatever the immediate issues revolving around the academic or ethical relevancy of his beliefs in the decision made by the RIU committee to award him his PhD, a more pedestrian take on this sordid tale easily detects the odor of a hoodwinker whose alleged mastery of the science camouflages a much superior and sinister mastery in deceit. Science and ethics are NOT well served. Shameful. Only in America indeed.
Believing that the earth is 10,000 years old is not a religious belief. If I believe the earth is 4.5 billions of years old, is that a religious belief? In the face of persuasive evidence, believing the earth is 10,000 years old is delusional, not religious.
Post a Comment