Young Earth Creation and Harvard

[smartestnumber5]

I thought this article Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules in the NYTimes yesterday was pretty interesting.

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.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”

He likened his situation to that of a socialist studying economics in a department with a supply-side bent. “People hold all sorts of opinions different from the department in which they graduate,” he said. “What’s that to anybody else?”

I just don't really understand his view of two paradigms. Clearly he must think that the paleontological paradigm is false and scriptural paradigm is true. So why would someone spend 6 years learning techniques in being in a subject one thinks is just across the board wrong? I mean, in the capitalist/socialist example either way it's still economics and techniques of economics that the person would be learning. Why didn't he just go into theology?

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.”.....

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.

This does seem scary indeed that his Harvard credentials--which he clearly could not have obtained had he tried scientifically support young earth creationism or intelligent design--are being used to make him look like a legitimate expert on those subjects. In fact, one actually feels as if there is some hint of dishonesty in this. It's kind of like if a scientologist went to a top medical school to become a psychiatrist--all the while learning the techniques of psychiatry and giving answers on exams that one doesn't actually believe are true; and then once s/he graduate s/he began putting out books and DVDs exclaiming the evils of all psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. If one already had one's mind made up that psychiatry is evil and almost all it has to say is wrong, then why would one get training in psychiatry if not so that one looks legitimate when one attacks it?

 

[Alyssa88]

Very interesting. You make excellent points, and it really does piss me off that someone would do this.

 

[mom2rb]

I read this article yesterday and I feel the same way you do.

 

[Tiggeroo]

He is public in stating he doesn't believe in evolution, he is just able to demonstrate technical knowledge of it. Nothing wrong with this. I am sure his dissertation advisor and the committee are fully aware of his bias. They could have chosen to refuse it. From what you are saying biblical Christians have absolutely no place in any of the sciences, including medicine. That is very exclusionary and would have left off many founders of early science. It is unfortunate that they must present theories, such as evolution as fact. They should simply be able to state, in the theory of evolution.......In the theory of creation.....There would then be areas of their work where they never mention their beliefs and times when it would become necessary.

 

[LisaL]

...

This does seem scary indeed that his Harvard credentials--which he clearly could not have obtained had he tried scientifically support young earth creationism or intelligent design--are being used to make him look like a legitimate expert on those subjects.

Harvard does not exclude Christians or persons of other faiths from its schools. Particularly since it still has (I think) its theology school. It would be a sad day if our schools discouraged, or even discriminated against, students whose personal beliefs did not line up with their own. According to the article, his work is impeccable.

And if he was sneaky, why did he participate in that DVD? It seems the opposite to me.

It seems your concern is that, armed with a PhD, he will pursue the young earth creation theory. Did I understand correctly? If we are to a free society, it has to be free for all. Of course, it's hard to keep that perspective if you feel that his freedom to pursue this could infringe on your freedom to live, which continues to be battle. It's a difficult balance that requires constant vigilence.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I read that article yesterday too, and I felt good about it. Not because I believe in evolution, but because I believe in academic freedom. Why shouldn't he have the right to study, do research and present his findings? How would those of you who object feel if the situation were reversed, as it was at one time? Does silencing the creationist "make up" for all the years that evolutionists were silenced? I would like to think that we are bigger people than that, that we are open to allow even those that hold differing views to express them.

 

[Julia M]

I thought this article [UIt's kind of like if a scientologist went to a top medical school to become a psychiatrist--all the while learning the techniques of psychiatry and giving answers on exams that one doesn't actually believe are true; and then once s/he graduate s/he began putting out books and DVDs exclaiming the evils of all psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. If one already had one's mind made up that psychiatry is evil and almost all it has to say is wrong, then why would one get training in psychiatry if not so that one looks legitimate when one attacks it?

Actually, learning about a subject that you disagree with isn't that uncommon. I think it would be worse to say that you can't learn about something if you don't believe in it. If by learning about evolution this young man will be able to somehow discredit it, then the theory isn't worth much to begin with.

I work in a field of special ed (preschoolers with autism) that has many theories of treatment, including some that are pretty diametrically opposed to each other. I certainly have my own bias on what is appropriate, yet I attend conferences and workshops on a variety of treatments. If I were trying to persuade someone, i would certainly take all the info I have learned to make my case.

Julia

 

[smartestnumber5]

It is unfortunate that they must present theories, such as evolution as fact.

A scientific theory is pretty much as close to proven as science can get. (The word "fact" is not a technical term used in science as far as I can tell.) So the idea that evolution should be presented as theory, not fact is nonsensical. A scientific theory is just about as close to fact as science can get. Evolution IS a scientific theory--which means scientists are pretty much as close to sure about it as they can possibly get.

It's intelligent design which IS NOT a scientific theory. To be a scientific theory, it would have to have a ton of support and be empirically verifiable through observation and experimentation. And it doesn't have that.

 

[themarquis]

He is public in stating he doesn't believe in evolution, he is just able to demonstrate technical knowledge of it. Nothing wrong with this. I am sure his dissertation advisor and the committee are fully aware of his bias. They could have chosen to refuse it. From what you are saying biblical Christians have absolutely no place in any of the sciences, including medicine. That is very exclusionary and would have left off many founders of early science. It is unfortunate that they must present theories, such as evolution as fact. They should simply be able to state, in the theory of evolution.......In the theory of creation.....There would then be areas of their work where they never mention their beliefs and times when it would become necessary.

I don't think the point was that biblical Christians have no place in the sciences or in academia-- and I assume the OP does not think this -- but that to be BOTH scientist and a christian, one might have to make some revisions to any *literalist* interpretations of some portions of the bible that they might hold.

For example (using a different field), I feel that the *literal* belief in a seven-day creation is *incompatible* with being a geologist. Being a geologist meaning not just someone who has acquired factual knowledge about different types of rocks or whatnot (and who could potentially regurgitate such knowledge on examinations or a thesis) but someone who can perform geology in the field and in the laboratory (i.e., date rocks, mineral strata, and fossils).

Basically, the incompatibility is that geology *depends* on the exstence of an "old" earth and all of its modern theories, principles, and practices evolve from an understanding of an old earth. HOW, exactly, could a person who thinks the earth was created miraculously in a (literal) seven day period of time TRULY be a geologist?

Now ... here's the thing ... there are plenty of christians who are geologists ... how are they geologists, you might ask? They are able to be geologists because they refute the seven day creation. Some of them might believe in a god-guided evolution of the earth's geology; some of them might believe that the "seven day" creation was metaphorical (that is, how do we know how long those "days" were in the bible?) and some of them might believe in the teachings of Jesus and some segments of the old testament but discard the creation myths. All fine and good.

Let me provide another example. An insane one. Let's say we have a person who believes that all literature was written as a secret code by aliens from Alpha Centauri who infiltrate the brains of humans. The study of literature to this person means that we should decode literature and find out what secret messages those aliens are sending us. Now ... HOW exactly could a person who holds these beliefs be a scholar of or expert of literature ... and would you feel comfortable with the idea that this person has gotten a Ph.D in literature from an esteemed university by basically lying and b.s.ing and regurgitating the knowledge they were supposed to have learned in their thesis? And what if they told everyone who would listen that they did the lying and b.s.ing just because they wanted to teach classes at their cult's "university" to other insane people who believe in the Alpha Centaurians and to have a Ph.D. to seem more legitimate and acquire more followers? I sure wouldn't feel comfortable with this.

Basically, I would argue that christians can "belong" anywhere, including academia (and certainly they occupy esteemed positions in every field in academia, to the contrary of what some people believe about their "exclusion" from academia) but not if they hold (IMO ludicrous) ideas that are completely incompatable with their entire field of study.

 

[themarquis]

Actually, learning about a subject that you disagree with isn't that uncommon. I think it would be worse to say that you can't learn about something if you don't believe in it. If by learning about evolution this young man will be able to somehow discredit it, then the theory isn't worth much to begin with.

I work in a field of special ed (preschoolers with autism) that has many theories of treatment, including some that are pretty diametrically opposed to each other. I certainly have my own bias on what is appropriate, yet I attend conferences and workshops on a variety of treatments. If I were trying to persuade someone, i would certainly take all the info I have learned to make my case.

Julia

You're right -- good point. However, there is a difference between refusing to believe in something that is contested or for which there are multiple perspectives on in your field of study (happens all the time) and refusing to believe in something that is a central tenet of your field of study (and which your field of study wouldn't exist without). A better example would be -- how could you work in special ed if you believed that all children with problems are "faking" it and therefore special ed teachers should beat them to get them to act "normal"? Well ... I'd guess we'd all agree you couldn't/shouldn't work in this field even if you could pretend to believe in what you were taught temporarily for the purposes of getting a degree.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Actually, learning about a subject that you disagree with isn't that uncommon. I think it would be worse to say that you can't learn about something if you don't believe in it. If by learning about evolution this young man will be able to somehow discredit it, then the theory isn't worth much to begin with.

It isn't just evolution that he wants to discredit. It appears that he doesn't believe in ANYTHING about paleontology--NOTHING. At least, that's what I take him to mean when he talks about a scriptural paradigm which would have the earth being only 10,000 years old. That would mean that just about everything about palentology would have to be false. (Perhaps I am misinterpreting his idea of paradigms and this is not what he means and he simply believes contradictory things at the same time ) So I think this is very, very different than him simply saying, "oh there's this one piece of paleontology I don't agree with."

And it's not a matter of whether he can disprove anything. Of course I don't think he can't disprove it. But I do think he can add to the woeful ignorance and misinformation amongst many Americans regarding any science which seems to contradict scriptural literalism. And that is dangerous.

Though of course I totally agree that he definitely should have received his degree. And I definitely think that academic freedom applies to this situation (unless, of course, he is simply refusing to do science, in which case he is not doing his job if he is hired as a professor of science).

 

[smartestnumber5]

I believe in academic freedom. Why shouldn't he have the right to study, do research and present his findings? How would those of you who object feel if the situation were reversed, as it was at one time? Does silencing the creationist "make up" for all the years that evolutionists were silenced? I would like to think that we are bigger people than that, that we are open to allow even those that hold differing views to express them.

I totally agree with all this. He definitely shouldn't be silenced. But the situation doesn't make me feel good at all. No more than if a Jehovah's Witness when into phlebotomy (the study of blood--I probably spelled it wrong ) and talked about how they believe in two different paradigms--one scriptural and one scientific, and then, armed with a Harvard PhD, began trying to convince an ignorant public that blood transfusions are unnecessary or dangerous. I would support that person's academic freedom too, but I sure wouldn't like it.

I think the two paradigm approach can probably a great thing for some individual scientists who want to believe in literal claims of scripture and who want to believe in science as more than just a crackpot enterprise that gets things absolutely wrong. But when it comes to intelligent design or young earth creationism--that is not 2 separate paradigms anymore. The folks pushing these things are informing the public that there is scientific evidence for these views and implying that evolution or the idea that the dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans are just theories--even though that phrase makes no sense. (Interestingly I believe the Catholic Church officially espouses a 2 paradigm kind of view. Evolution is accepted as scientific truth, and intelligent design is not encouraged because it is bad science. But it is still held that there is a God who created humans in his image, etc. I have no problem with that view because they are recognizing bad science for what it is. But that is a very different thing than what some scriptural literalists are doing regarding young earth creationism.)

I teach philosophy and each semester we have a unit on philosophy and the existence of God and one of the arguments (from early 1800s) is a precursor to intellgent design arguments so we have to talk a little about evolution. It's amazing how uninformed students are about evolution. I can only guess that they are getting this stuff these kinds of groups and probably only haphazardly absorbing any of the information. One student tried to argue that the existence of water on the earth proved that there was a God because without water we couldn't survive.

 

[smartestnumber5]

There were some letters in the NYTimes today in response to the articlein question that made similar points to the points on this thread: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/opinion/l14scientist.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I found one letter in particular amusing:

Imagine the converse situation: an atheist enrolls in a theological seminary to become a priest. He says all the right things and writes all the right papers. He gets ordained. Then he goes to a parish and preaches that there is no God.

Could it happen? Of course not!

 

[meandtheguys2]

I think that one can have an area of interest, and not be mainstream. Why study something, just to be a parrot? I can't stand the majority of psychological ******** theories, but that is where my degrees lie. And I would most certainly use the imformation I obtained while getting those degrees to help others with issues with those systems (social workers, etc.)

Some of the most interesting theories have ben obtained by those who challenged rather than lamely followed the establishment.

 

[Andy B]

I must admit my liberal world view thinks that if he wants to study something in which he obviously disagrees then good luck to him but I do wonder if having spent so long studying the subject then he must have som agenda he wants to persue afterwards. I think it is different to a doctor or psychiatrist as they can do direct harm, I would liken it to a historian who then uses his position to deny the Holocaust, something which has happened.

As a further point I was interested as to the phrase Biblical Christians are there any others?

 

[salmoneous]

From what you are saying biblical Christians have absolutely no place in any of the sciences,

Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that there isn't anyplace in science for people who believe that the evidence we have points towards a young earth.

There are tons of "biblical Christians" out there who don't believe that God created the universe less than 10,000 years ago.

 

[JoyG]

Nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that there isn't anyplace in science for people who believe that the evidence we have points towards a young earth.

I disagree. I don't think we have the right to dictate to anyone how they're allowed to think.

I personally would have no problem with a Jehovah's witness who was drawing my blood. If he was qualified and not unwilling to do the job... I wouldn't care.

I guess it boils down to who's going to hire him and for what purpose. He doesn't appear to be misrepresenting himself. He's clearly highly intelligent and capable.

You might not want to hire him to work for "your" science lab, but that's not to say he won't be attractive to anyone else.

To say he doesn't even belong in the field sounds a bit discriminatory.

 

[rockbottomsound]

I totally believe in God and the creation etc., etc., but I have no problem with reconciling the fact that the earth is millions or billions of years old. The Bible presents no exact timeline or anything that I can think of that would even give someone the reasoning for believing that the Bible states that the earth is only 10 thousand years old? Not sure where this even comes from.

Even my dad who is essentially a strict constructionist of the Bible doesn't think the earth is only 10 thousand years old according to the bible???

The Bible is not intended to be a text book on geology, human history etc., it is a plan on how to be saved, with a few stories thrown in, some of which may be true, some just analogies/examples etc., not all necessarily meant to be precisely true or historical fact/history etc.

 

[salmoneous]

I disagree. I don't think we have the right to dictate to anyone how they're allowed to think.

To be clear, I think there is room in science for those people who believe the universe is <10,000 years old. However, I don't think there is room for people who believe that there is significant scientific evidence for a young earth.

A scientist's personal belief is their own business. But at this point, you have to distort science to see scientific proof for a young earth. I don't think there is room in science for people who distort science.

 

[JoyG]

To be clear, I think there is room in science for those people who believe the universe is <10,000 years old. However, I don't think there is room for people who believe that there is significant scientific evidence for a young earth.

A scientist's personal belief is their own business. But at this point, you have to distort science to see scientific proof for a young earth. I don't think there is room in science for people who distort science.

I went back to the original article to see if the Harvard grad claims there is scientific proof for his beliefs. It appears from the article that he bases his beliefs on the Bible.

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.

For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another.