Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, February 12, 2007 | Science : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

by Cornelia Dean

Reposted from the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?ex=1328936400&en=c3267d075279160b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

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?"

But not everyone is happy with that approach. "People go somewhat bananas when they hear about this," said Jon C. Boothroyd, a professor of geosciences at Rhode Island.

In theory, scientists look to nature for answers to questions about nature, and test those answers with experiment and observation. For Biblical literalists, Scripture is the final authority. As a creationist raised in an evangelical household and a paleontologist who said he was "just captivated" as a child by dinosaurs and fossils, Dr. Ross embodies conflicts between these two approaches. The conflicts arise often these days, particularly as people debate the teaching of evolution.

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.

"We also discuss the intersection of those sorts of ideas with Christianity," he said. "I don't require my students to say or write their assent to one idea or another any more than I was required."

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."

A somewhat more complicated issue arose last year at Ohio State University, where Bryan Leonard, a high school science teacher working toward a doctorate in education, was preparing to defend his dissertation on the pedagogical usefulness of teaching alternatives to the theory of evolution.

Earle M. Holland, a spokesman for the university, said Mr. Leonard and his adviser canceled the defense when questions arose about the composition of the faculty committee that would hear it.

Meanwhile three faculty members had written the university administration, arguing that Mr. Leonard's project violated the university's research standards in that the students involved were being subjected to something harmful (the idea that there were scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution) without receiving any benefit.

Citing privacy rules, Mr. Holland would not discuss the case in detail, beyond saying that Mr. Leonard was still enrolled in the graduate program. But Mr. Leonard has become a hero to people who believe that creationists are unfairly treated by secular institutions.

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.

"He is lionized," Dr. Scott said. "He is the young earth creationist with a degree from Harvard."

As for Dr. Ross, "he does good science, great science," said Dr. Boothroyd, who taught him in a class in glacial geology. But in talks and other appearances, Dr. Boothroyd went on, Dr. Ross is already using "the fact that he has a Ph.D. from a legitimate science department as a springboard."

Dr. Ross, 30, grew up in Rhode Island in an evangelical Christian family. He attended Pennsylvania State University and then the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, where he wrote his master's thesis on marine fossils found in the state.

His creationism aroused "some concern by faculty members there, and disagreements," he recalled, and there were those who argued that his religious beliefs should bar him from earning an advanced degree in paleontology.

"But in the end I had a decent thesis project and some people who, like the people at U.R.I., were kind to me, and I ended up going through," Dr. Ross said.

Dr. Fastovsky and other members of the Rhode Island faculty said they knew about these disagreements, but admitted him anyway. Dr. Boothroyd, who was among those who considered the application, said they judged Dr. Ross on his academic record, his test scores and his master's thesis, "and we said, 'O.K., we can do this.' "

He added, "We did not know nearly as much about creationism and young earth and intelligent design as we do now."

For his part, Dr. Ross says, "Dr. Fastovsky was liberal in the most generous and important sense of the term."

He would not say whether he shared the view of some young earth creationists that flaws in paleontological dating techniques erroneously suggest that the fossils are far older than they really are.

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."

Dr. Fastovsky said he had talked to Dr. Ross "lots of times" about his religious beliefs, but that depriving him of his doctorate because of them would be nothing more than religious discrimination. "We are not here to certify his religious beliefs," he said. "All I can tell you is he came here and did science that was completely defensible."

Comments 1 - 38 of 38 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #22001 by Linda on February 12, 2007 at 8:34 am

Get back to Kansas please Dorothy. There seems to be certain evidence that some Americans are mating with vegetables.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6MJVzXbqRU

Other Comments by Linda

2. Comment #22002 by lpetrich on February 12, 2007 at 8:39 am

 avatarI know who he is:

Andrew Snelling II

After an Australian young-earth creationist who is nevertheless a geologist who writes in professional publications that the Earth has rocks that are over 2.5 billion years old.

Other Comments by lpetrich

3. Comment #22003 by nickthelight on February 12, 2007 at 8:43 am

 avatar.....paleontology are one "paradigm" for studying the past, and Scripture is another.

This stance is nothing but intellectual disambiguation without the possibility of factual resolution; ipso facto!, that would no doubt have Plato turning in his grave. The very idea that you can study to a finite degree a subject in fact and then profess another 'thought pattern' is no different to Stephen Hawking stating his cosmological theories may not be applicable at a given time because from the astrological perspective 'mars is not in line with Saturn' for example.

Science and pseudoscience, square pegs and round holes.


Other Comments by nickthelight

4. Comment #22006 by Cwazy Cat Lady on February 12, 2007 at 9:07 am

 avatarI'm not going to challenge his right to the degree, if he did all the work and can defend it. His personal views don't really enter the framework, I don't think--not for degree granting. In terms of what he now does with it, well, it may be a different story...

It's clear that for this student, and for his community, no amount of evidence or anything, it appears, will cause them to examine and abandon beliefs, even when they contradict reality.

It's now just a matter of having made a choice to be stubborn... and probably (in this kid's mind) going to any length to "help the cause of his Lord."

Other Comments by Cwazy Cat Lady

5. Comment #22008 by Roy_H on February 12, 2007 at 9:23 am

 avatar"Comment #22001 by Linda on February 12, 2007 at 8:34 am Get back to Kansas please Dorothy. There seems to be certain evidence that some Americans are mating with vegetables."
WOW that was incredible ! I get the impression that they do not believe in evolution for the simple reason some of the buggers never evolved. "Irony deficiency" I love that remark.

Other Comments by Roy_H

6. Comment #22009 by epeeist on February 12, 2007 at 9:23 am

 avatarComment #22006 by Cwazy Cat Lady
I'm not going to challenge his right to the degree, if he did all the work and can defend it.

I assume the procedure in the States is similar to the UK. The question is who is going to do his Viva? Someone who can challenge his work, or a Professor from Liberty?

Other Comments by epeeist

7. Comment #22012 by Linda on February 12, 2007 at 10:20 am

Religion is weird and thanks to TV and now youtube there is a wealth of material to laugh about after all if we aren't laughing then it would be too easy to give up.

I am a big fan of fellow photographer Shelby Lee Adams. Adams works in Appalachia. http://www.photographsdonotbend.com/past-shows/adams/adams.html
A couple of years ago TVO (TV Ontario) presented a documentary 'The True Meaning of Pictures: Shelby Lee Adams' Appalachia.' The documentary is a chance to see Adams working to chronicle the lives of the people in that region most of whom are inbred, illiterate and practice bizarre rituals for Jesus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMP-CQ_bvSM

The music is hot!

As for the topic I'm working on a Phd about the Secret Life of Pixies so please stay tuned.

Other Comments by Linda

8. Comment #22035 by Bremas on February 12, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Well that just ruined my day. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

"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."

I wonder, if asked, whether he would call ID yet a third paradigm?

Other Comments by Bremas

9. Comment #22037 by kaiserkriss on February 12, 2007 at 1:51 pm

 avatarWorking in the Canadian oil patch(!!??) I'm faced with this dilemma on a daily basis, communicating with highly educated Engineers and Earth Scientists, who for 6 days of the week believe and talk evolution, yet on the Seventh day fall back into the creationist trap. When confronted with the "discrepency" of their beliefs and actions, more often than not, it turns out to be a matter of maintaining familial harmony.
While at first glance this seems to be a poor excuse, it is probably not too far from the truth, where the spouse in a die hard Xtian.
As for Dr Ross and his fellow travellers,one could think of them as Trojan horses.The real proof of their professional integrety would be how and what they teach in their Christian Colleges to their students. I suspect graduates in the Earth Sciences from these Schools would however have a difficult task of finding suitable employment in their disciplines of choise.
Another thought- the human animal is great at compartmentalizing tasks or thought for that matter, so I suspect people like Dr Ross have no difficulty whatso ever in rationalizing their Christian beliefs with their Scientific beliefs. That they are basically lying to themselves has never crossed their mind... It is so easy for Catholics to run off to confession,seek redemption and continue on their merry "blasphemous" ways.

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

10. Comment #22047 by Quine on February 12, 2007 at 5:56 pm

 avatarThis is a fascinating aspect of human cognition. It is well known (and very interesting to study) that some people can hold mutually exclusive belief systems and still have high functionality. I suspect this is because the brain is not one unified thing, but rather, is a mosaic of modules that evolved at many different times in the history of life, and because we have two brains anyway (except for those who have had hemispheric lobectomy or the equivalent birth defect).

Some people who have had the connection between the two hemispheres (brains) cut have shown that independent thinking can happen across the gap. This can go all the way to the case of having one side that believes in the supernatural while the other side does not. For most people (except us lefties) the left hemisphere is dominate and uses the central commissure to tell the right side to "shut up." This is more or less effective on a person by person basis, so the existence of counterexamples to the idea that each person must have a unified belief system, does not shock me.

Other Comments by Quine

11. Comment #22054 by nine9s on February 12, 2007 at 8:15 pm

If a person has fulfilled the requirements for a degree, in all fairness that person should receive it. All the same, there are serious ethical questions about Ph.D. candidates writing dissertations that they don't believe to be true. "Dr. Ross" essentially lied through his teeth to get that degree. The creationists/IDers have to either scientifically defend YEC or lie in their dissertations. The "paradigm" crap is, I think, a wink to their fellow Christians, a way to beat the postmodernists at their own game. One thing the Christians actually do well is innoculate themselves against postmodern rubbish like "you create your own reality."

Other Comments by nine9s

12. Comment #22063 by Russell Blackford on February 12, 2007 at 9:11 pm

So, once again we see epistemological scepticism and epistemic relativism (the latter in this case, with a strong nod to Kuhn) being the believers' best friends.

(I'm sure there's a snappier way of putting this, for the purpose of popularising the idea, but we see it happening again and again.)

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

13. Comment #22084 by Peter Hearty on February 12, 2007 at 10:18 pm

 avatarI agree with nine9s, this raises serious ethical issues. Unfortunately, I'm in no position to throw stones. I vividly remember writing in an English exam about Othello being a tragic hero, when I really thought he was a gullible fool. Essentially, I lied to get the marks and provided the textbook answer.

What Dr. Ross has done is the same thing, except on a massive scale. He has provided textbook answers throughout his undergraduate and masters degrees, and has even defended original research for his Ph.D.

Can we really say that he lied though? What of physicists who work on general relativity and quantum mechanics. We know that they can't both be completely correct, yet we apply both in their respective areas and generally ignore their inconsistencies. Isn't Dr. Ross doing something similar?

The most serious issue though is his using his academic credentials to lend authority to his creationist beliefs. This does seem blatantly dishonest to me. His academic credentials were gained by defending one "paradigm", as he puts it, they cannot be used to support another.

Other Comments by Peter Hearty

14. Comment #22094 by Mroberts3 on February 12, 2007 at 10:43 pm

I saw this on the times website today and it got me into insta-letter-to-the-editor mode. I just can't believe the stuff that passes for thinking these days.

I don't see how you can deny him a Phd though based on his personal beliefs. Luckily he found a place at Liberty "University," so hopefully he will remain outside the modern scientific world for the near future.

Other Comments by Mroberts3

15. Comment #22116 by Corylus on February 12, 2007 at 11:58 pm

 avatar"So, once again we see epistemological scepticism and epistemic relativism (the latter in this case, with a strong nod to Kuhn) being the believers' best friends".

Reckon you are right here Russell.

In terms of arguing against Ross I would say the best strategy is not to attack his creationism (he is not giving that up anytime soon) but to attack his views on Kuhn by noting that

a) Kuhn isn't the most subtle philosopher of science that the world has produced and
b) When he discussed paradigm shifts he was talking about people dramatically changing their views. This is not the same thing as people being able to hold diametrically opposed views at the same time!

Other Comments by Corylus

16. Comment #22120 by GordonHide on February 13, 2007 at 12:40 am

Just goes to show what a prophet George Orwell was. Talk about doublethink. It's amazing.

Other Comments by GordonHide

17. Comment #22144 by stephenray on February 13, 2007 at 3:45 am

Refuse to award a qualification to students who simply say what the examiner wants to hear?

Not realistic. We are going to have to live with the fact that people are bamboozled by 'qualifications' and are often too lazy to apply their own mind to the question of whether what someone says is rational or not.

Take the long view - anybody seriously believe that the literalist biblical view of biodiversity will triumph over evolution by natural selection in the long run?

Other Comments by stephenray

18. Comment #22154 by MaxWeiss on February 13, 2007 at 4:40 am

I guess it makes some sense for a religious nut to study science just to understand how scientists think. I've thought about studying religion to try and get into the heads of the religious zealots, but really---how much can you put into it if you just find the whole idea preposterous???

Other Comments by MaxWeiss

19. Comment #22155 by jeepyjay on February 13, 2007 at 4:43 am

 avatarWhich paradigm will he follow if he encounters a situation in which they conflict and his personal survival is involved? For instance if he encounters bird flu? Does he accept the use of antivirus treatment based on evolutionary theory? Or can he talk himself round this somehow?

Is this ability for doublethink a survival advantage? Should we all be trying to develop it? Does he really know which of the paradigms represents the real truth? This article raises more questions for me than answers.

Edit: 14 Feb: Here's another, older, example of doublethink, cited by a correspondent to the BCSE forum.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm


Other Comments by jeepyjay

20. Comment #22157 by MouthAlmighty on February 13, 2007 at 4:55 am

 avatarWell I think this guy thoroughly deserves his Phd. He's clearly put in hours of serious work and proven himself to be just as thoroughgoing and sincere as any other student of geology.

Of course, in another 'paradigm' I think he's a complete fuckwit!

If the suspicion that he has passed through his entire Phd 'with his fingers crossed' simply in order to get some academic credentials with which to dress up his deluded ideas is true, then it will be interesting to see how he accounts for his unambiguous assertions about the age of the earth he made in the process. They are after all a matter of record.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

21. Comment #22159 by lpetrich on February 13, 2007 at 5:01 am

 avatarI don't think that Dr. Ross is doing anything like a physicist who works with general relativity and quantum mechanics. That's because GR is essentially a classical-mechanics limit of something or other, and working with semiclassical approximations is an established part of quantum mechanics. It's known when semiclassical approximations will be invalid, so if you use one, you know where it won't work.

I find it curious that Dr. Ross has not endorsed Philip Gosse's theory of created appearance that he expressed in his book Omphalos. The title, the Greek word for navel, derives from the conundrum of whether Adam and Eve had had navels, since they had not been born in the usual way.

He pointed to various cyclic phenomena and noted that they must have been created in the middle of their cycling, so the Universe could just as well have been created in the middle of its apparent history.

However, his theory has sometimes been dismissed as involving divine fraudulence, and Bertrand Russell had gone even further, pointing out that the Universe could have been created in Gossian fashion five minutes ago, with us being created with memories of a much longer existence.

Other Comments by lpetrich

22. Comment #22161 by lpetrich on February 13, 2007 at 5:06 am

 avatarkaiserkriss, have you ever considered suggesting to your friends to get themselves and their families books by theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or Joan Roughgarden?

Other Comments by lpetrich

23. Comment #22168 by MIND_REBEL on February 13, 2007 at 5:56 am

 avatarWhat crap. The man is only giving respectablity to a meme, a meme that causes war, promotes racism, sexism, homophobia, and poverty.

The fact that he's even allowed to graduate is a perfect example of doublethink.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

24. Comment #22177 by padster1976 on February 13, 2007 at 6:25 am

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

So he indulges in self indulgent wishful thinking in his private life? He'll never be taken seriously again!

He views the world one then as if by magic, puts on rosy tinted glasses and the world is ok again!

There's an element here that his professional side is his false side. That he states millions of years for the earth so he can get a job puts is always thinking 'i know the truth and therefore better than you'! How sad.

It truly shows just how deeply ingrained this mind disease that is religion is. This is further evidence that we need to get the factual evidence for science to them and not this crap!

Other Comments by padster1976

25. Comment #22191 by K on February 13, 2007 at 7:38 am

Some of you are suggesting that it is discimination to withhold his degree for his views.

So, if I believed that rain is really fairy pee, but I don't discuss that in my dissertation - I should be eligible for a PhD in meteorology?

A doctoral degree is not conferred because one has "put the time in" as one previous poster suggested. Thousands of PhD candidates have left graduate school without their degrees for reasons far more mundane than this.

His beliefs demonstrate a lack of understanding of the basic underpinnings of his field of study. As such, these would justify failure in his comprehensive or qualifying exams (a necessary rite of passage for most PhD programs).

If I were on his PhD committee - I would not pass him.

A doctoral degree should reflect mastery of your discipline and significant scientific accomplishment in your specific area. He does not meet these standards.

K

Other Comments by K

26. Comment #22192 by Keinen_Gott on February 13, 2007 at 7:57 am

I feel that if you are going to get a PHD in any field of study you should have to at least agree with its ideas.

Other Comments by Keinen_Gott

27. Comment #22197 by David James on February 13, 2007 at 8:53 am

I think you’re underestimating the level of madness this guy is indulging in here (and the nature of some of the problem with a lot of religious people too).

It’s not that he “disagrees” with the ideas put forward by palaeontology. He seems to have a relativistic notion of truth which allows him to think that, within the “paradigm” of palaeontology, one set of facts are “true” and within the “paradigm” of his religious life a contradictory set of facts is true. Insane I know, but I think this is different to thinking that the findings of science are false – which would of course reflect poorly on his academic record. This just reflects poorly on his sanity.

He seems to have missed the fact that I could say that, within the paradigm of Arthur Conan Doyle’s writing Sherlock Holmes lived in Baker Street and within the paradigm of the REAL WORLD he did not. He seems not to understand or refuses to accept that one of his paradigms is analogous to this real world paradigm. He just blank refuses to acknowledge this issue.

I think this “double think” business is really important in the struggle against religion and I really think it’s important to see it and religion for what it is. I’d like to see more work done by this movement against this aspect of the problem. Any thoughts anyone?

But to summarise : What a nutter.

Other Comments by David James

28. Comment #22223 by Yorker on February 13, 2007 at 3:25 pm

 avatarI think the worst thing about this cheat – that's the correct name for him – is the fact that he's made a mockery of the entire doctoral process and was allowed to do so by some spineless people who should be ostracized by the scientific community for the unforgivable crime they have committed. I smell the fear of religious influence here.

It's easy to see where this might lead; the religious dollar being used to fund the education of students deluded enough to lie for Jesus. It's tantamount to:

"OK you godless suckers, I'll play by your rules and do whatever you say until you give me that document, then I'll do whatever I can to embarrass you, using the tool I conned you into giving me."

Other Comments by Yorker

29. Comment #22281 by Aussie on February 13, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Never underestimate the ability of the human brain to compartmentalise mutually and grossly antagonistic paradigms.

A good example was how SS guards in Nazi concentration camps were able to go home after a grizly day's work at the ovens and then blithely perform their domestic responsibilities as loving and caring husbands and fathers - even playing the violin sublimely (eg in the case of the notorious Heydrich).

Given that compartmentalisation at this gross level is so easily achieved, Ross should have had no difficulty coming to terms with his comparatively innocuous intellectual conflict.

I also think that it could be a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Other Comments by Aussie

30. Comment #22287 by Chayanov on February 13, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Coming up on the end of my own dissertation work, I really can't imagine what it would be like if I had put in all those years of study, defending my ideas, putting my ideas out there to be critiqued, all the writing I had done, and not believe a word of it. I'd probably go crazy, hating myself for living a lie every single day, lying to myself, my professors, and my colleagues.

Other Comments by Chayanov

31. Comment #22356 by Lionel A on February 15, 2007 at 4:07 am

 avatarComment #22223 by Yorker

Indeed Yorker; Ross is thus clearly using similar subversive tactics as we witnessed with the Islamic fundamentalist preaching during that Dispatches – Green Lane Mosque video:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,539,Dispatches-Undercover-Mosque,Channel-4

such fifth columnists should be ostracized by the true scientific community or at least severely censured.

Other Comments by Lionel A

32. Comment #26692 by alexander77 on March 21, 2007 at 7:20 am

Well, Mr. Ross fulfilled the official requirements to get the PhD degree and therefore you cannot deny it to him.

Certainly I agree that he does not deserve it.
I guess it will be as sure as the Amen in the church that he will abuse his title to give ID and creationist ideas more credit. When he is doing so, then it is the time for all "normal" thinking scientists to discredit and pillory him publicly and portray him as a liar due to the discrepancy between with what he earned his PhD and and what he is stating publicly. Go and get him a bad reputation within his parish! I remember something written in the bible "Thou shall not lie" ; )

His way of thinking in two paradigms is simply total crap. As someone stated before, he is a f***wit.

Just besides, his tutor should be ashamed for accepting such a person as PhD student. That is unforgivable fundamentalists like Mr. Ross never change their religous beliefs, not even after a few years of PhD work in science.

Other Comments by alexander77

33. Comment #33254 by Aaron SF on April 19, 2007 at 5:53 pm

 avatarI think it's important to keep someones activities and beliefs sepperate. There are pleanty of well educated people who would support all sorts of crap, but they have degrees.

The degree is a measure of what you've done not what you think. You can think about a paper all you want but it won't matter till you've written it.

The danger here is that he gives the impression that his education backs his other "Paradigm" when in reality they are in direct conflict.

But lets really think about this... aside from political and media advantage what does this really lend him? Yes I cringe when I see "so-in-so", a scientist with a PHD in "etc", supports ID.

But the inherent flaw of ID and creationism is that they are dead ends. They don't go anywhere. You can use the scientific method all you want but if you try to rule evolution out of your thinking your not going to make a very successful or reputable biologist. And if you try to contest that the age of the earth is greater than 10,000 years. You aren't going to be able to do much as a geologist, not progressively.

If he winds up making a contribution to science it will be from a framework of entirely the first "paradigm" and therefore not really going to make his other ideas more credible at all.

One great effect of working with the truth (or the closest thing we can come to it) is that it WORKS BETTER.

I don't think Creationism or ID can survive in fields that they conflict with. Though I'm sure you could be a succesful mathematician who doesn't believe in evolution.

So if he gets extra credit for his degree it will be short lived, and when he gets to be around seventy and he has nothing to back him up but his degree and some blip on the 700 club, we can all smile as he fades away unnoticed.


Other Comments by Aaron SF

34. Comment #87128 by Canuck#1 on November 11, 2007 at 9:16 am

 avatarI wonder ... if I wrote to the professor that after reading his disertation that it convinced me that my faith in the Veracity of the Bible was shaken ...and therefore my faith in Christ..and as a result I am leaving the church..turning to the tenants of atheism...would this create a classic case of cognitive dissonance...maybe he would be fired from Liberty U....sounds like a lot of fun..if nothing else it would show the basic dishonesty of his work...

Other Comments by Canuck#1

35. Comment #87133 by phasmagigas on November 11, 2007 at 9:32 am

 avatara bit like a dog breeder who opposes evolution but is happy to use selective breeding to get the right dog to hopefully sell at a good price.

a bit like the biochemist who opposes evolution but works on antibiotics under the assumption that it happens hopefully to sell at a good price.

very strange, cognitive dissonance at an extreme. then again this isnt too different from what i see all the time. I live right next to a jehova church, sunday morning all the big SUV's arrive, everybody gets out in their finest clothes, no doubt theres some good money makers out there with technical jobs, then they spend the best hours of the week sat engaged in something telling them how to arrange their lives best, like a bunch of kids in nursery school, very strange, im not understanding, not one bit.





Other Comments by phasmagigas

36. Comment #87219 by robert s on November 11, 2007 at 1:59 pm

However inconvenient it might be in this case, the only test for scientific validity is whether the evidence adduced supports the claims made.

If you're going to ban people from academic science (or deny them credit for their achievements in that field) for reasons other then lack of merit, who gets to decide what the other criteria should be?

How about if someone felt that black people are incapable of doing science? Or jews, or women, or communists? (These are hardly hypotheticals).

Even worse, if you ban people from doing science because they disagree with the current thinking, you'd be turning science into a dogmatic ideology - no-one would be able to criticize the ideas of Einstein, or Newton, or Plato without being expelled for heresy.

So props to all the academics who decided to recognise these loonies' actual achievements, even if the loonies themselves don't believe them.

It's not as if the whole creationism movement hangs on these cases anyway, they have plenty of diploma mills turning out 'Ph.Ds' that seem to be convincing their target audience.

Other Comments by robert s

37. Comment #87311 by octopus on November 11, 2007 at 7:19 pm

There are certain criteria in academia for awarding PhD. His beliefs are not part of those criteria in the science business. If he can defend his thesis and his papers on scientific grounds and show in-depth knowledge on his subject - his beliefs are irrelevant. As long as he keeps his "paradigms" separate, he can get away with it (by the way, never heard of word paradigm being used for hypocrisy).
Obviously, I cannot comment on his thesis or his scientific knowledge, but I do not think he would be able to contradict his thesis with his 10000yrs old Earth beliefs during his viva and still get his PhD (not in any half-decent uni at least).
If you start rejecting scientific work on the basis of beliefs of the author - then you are in ideology business.

Like many of you, I also cannot understand how one can switch from one mind-set to another and still be able to make original contribution to the body of science. It would be interesting to know how his viva went. I wonder what religious moralists think about being double-faced just to achieve one's goal.

Other Comments by octopus

38. Comment #87337 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 10:36 pm

 avatarI would suspect that Marcus R. Ross is a clever fraud across the board. Lots of profoundly dishonest people fly under the radar. Good people are ready to make excuses and give the benefit of the doubt when things don't add up. Academics in particular don't have a sensitive nose for cons.

The kinds of stories I'd expect to hear:
- His advisor gives him couple hundred bucks for travel expenses, supplies, whatever. Coincidentally, Ross' wallet is then stolen and the money is lost.
- He's around the department working someplace, but often people aren't sure where
- His CV, when subjected to fine scrutiny, reveals embellishment
- Often he explains that he "misspoke" or you "misheard" him
- Stuff is often late
- His early life includes a few tragic anecdotes that provoke pity
- "That cop who pulled me over was a complete asshole"

I would love to find out if I'm right about this.

Kurt Wise is a similar character:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,115,Sadly-an-Honest-Creationist,Richard-Dawkins,page1#54320

Other Comments by Dr Benway
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: