Christian Young Earth Scientists

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Here's an interesting article that I read in the NY times recently. I'm not really sure what to make of it. I thought it may provoke some interesting discussion, though I'm not really sure about what. Anyway, enjoy.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/...artner=homepageBelieving Scripture but Playing by Science’s RulesBy CORNELIA DEANPublished: February 12, 2007KINGSTON, 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.”Steven B. Case, a research professor at the Center for Research Learning at the University of Kansas, said it would be wrong to “censor someone for a belief system as long as it does not affect their work. Science is an open enterprise to anyone who practices it.”Dr. Case, who champions the teaching of evolution, heads the committee writing state science standards in Kansas, a state particularly racked by challenges to Darwin. Even so, he said it would be frightening if universities began “enforcing some sort of belief system on their graduate students.”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.”

[WrongWay 0]

Scientific method:Guess.Test.Repeat.If the tests fail to support the guess, then it MUST be tossed.If you're not willing to toss a guess when the test does not pass, then it is not science. If you hold a belief dogmatically, ignoring data that doesn't fit, searching for scraps of evidence that does fit, with the goal of justifying your belief.... then that isn't science. This guy started with a belief, then went looking for scraps to justify his beleif ignoring the mountain of data against his belief. That is not science.

[crowTrobot 2]

did i read that right? he conformed his doctorate thesis to match old-earth evidence-based science in order to get a degree he intends to use to promote young earth "science"? i'm sure god would appreciate his hypocricy lol.

[11 to 1 0]

Scientific method:Guess.Test.Repeat.If the tests fail to support the guess, then it MUST be tossed.If you're not willing to toss a guess when the test does not pass, then it is not science. If you hold a belief dogmatically, ignoring data that doesn't fit, searching for scraps of evidence that does fit, with the goal of justifying your belief.... then that isn't science. This guy started with a belief, then went looking for scraps to justify his beleif ignoring the mountain of data against his belief. That is not science.

He did? Where? Have you read his dissertation? What did he say that you base this declaration on? How is this different from a "scientist" who doesn't believe in life after deatha nd goes about looking for bits and pieces of science to explain it away? The young earth theory is, to me, quite bizarre, and pretty much seamless and unassailable. Doesn't stop anyone from pursuing pure scientific methodogy - they just explain it differently in the end. This does not presuppose clear and concise reporting. And if you don't know that evolutionary theory is full of "just so" stories, you haven't really studied it.

[Loismustdie 0]

He did? Where? Have you read his dissertation? What did he say that you base this declaration on? How is this different from a "scientist" who doesn't believe in life after deatha nd goes about looking for bits and pieces of science to explain it away? The young earth theory is, to me, quite bizarre, and pretty much seamless and unassailable. Doesn't stop anyone from pursuing pure scientific methodogy - they just explain it differently in the end. This does not presuppose clear and concise reporting. And if you don't know that evolutionary theory is full of "just so" stories, you haven't really studied it.

Once again we agree on something. I like you,man. Each side of the issue have there own beliefs assumed pre whatever it is they are doing,some substantiated and some not,and nobody says a word about it unless it's a creationist doing the talking.

[crowTrobot 2]

Each side of the issue have there own beliefs assumed pre whatever it is they are doing,some substantiated and some not,and nobody says a word about it unless it's a creationist doing the talking.

old earth science is not based on assumption or presupposition. it's based entirely on evidence.young earth "science" IS based on presupposition of literal biblical truth, as the dude in the article freely admits. thus young earth "science" is actually subjective philosophy, not objective science.

[semaj550 0]

Even many Christians reject Young-Earth Creationism. From a Christian apologist source:Rebuttal From ScriptureRebuttal From Scientific EvidenceI simply don't think the theory has legs to stand on by appealing to either the Bible or secular scientific evidence.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Ignoring the speficics of Young Earth philosophy, how/why could someone go through an entire Ph.D Doctoral process on a subject while stating certain views which he supports with evidence while at the same time holding a totally opposite perspective? And is there any obligation from the university to ensure that the person actually believes his own work, or does the work speak for itslef, or what?I'm just confused by this whole thing.

[Loismustdie 0]

old earth science is not based on assumption or presupposition. it's based entirely on evidence.young earth "science" IS based on presupposition of literal biblical truth, as the dude in the article freely admits. thus young earth "science" is actually subjective philosophy, not objective science.[/quote Was speaking in generalities- that's why I didn't reference anything in particular.

[Mattnxtc 0]

isnt the dating used for science based on assumptions? fwiw i dont particularly believe in the young earth nor the old earth...i get to be agnostic in terms of this decision haha...just tryin to add some real discussion to the forum. I know some christian scientists who have attacked carbon dating... i dont know much about it nor have the time to research it so im sure some people will add to this

[crowTrobot 2]

isnt the dating used for science based on assumptions?

no

fwiw i dont particularly believe in the young earth nor the old earth...i get to be agnostic in terms of this decision haha...

an old earth is not a matter of belief. it is as proven a scientific fact as that the earth revolves around the sun.

just tryin to add some real discussion to the forum. I know some christian scientists who have attacked carbon dating... i dont know much about it nor have the time to research it so im sure some people will add to this

i guess you don't recall the 5+ other times it was pointed out in similar discussions you were present for in this forum that carbon dating has a very limited useful range and is NOT used to age the earth.

[offset 0]

I don't see how he can have both. He would have to look at one idea from a theoretical perspective but not equate it with any real meaning. It sounds like he actually believes the more logical view, but feels like his religious view is too much a part of him to give up.

[crowTrobot 2]

I don't see how he can have both. He would have to look at one idea from a theoretical perspective but not equate it with any real meaning. It sounds like he actually believes the more logical view, but feels like his religious view is too much a part of him to give up.

either that or he sees a huge opportunity to make a fortune selling books to ignorant christians.

[11 to 1 0]

Ignoring the speficics of Young Earth philosophy, how/why could someone go through an entire Ph.D Doctoral process on a subject while stating certain views which he supports with evidence while at the same time holding a totally opposite perspective? And is there any obligation from the university to ensure that the person actually believes his own work, or does the work speak for itslef, or what?I'm just confused by this whole thing.

The obligation of the University, IMO, is to (as much as practicable) ensure the science is rigorous and correct or at the least, that any conclusions are supported by evidence. IOW, it's the work that matters, the guy's personal philosophy is irrelevant. And it should be. Once we decide that good work is not the criterion, once we decide people have to have certain belief systems to study or research or get degrees, then we aren't on a slipperly slope, we are sliding bareassed down an icy glacier to intellectual oblivion. I am not at all surprised this happened at Uof RI. (I LOVE BEING A RHODIE!!) My state is famous for being a place of true free-thinking. You can be what you want, believe what you want. Just don't bother your neighbors and no whining. One of the last really great places in this country. Rhode Island and the entire northwest.

[WrongWay 0]

either that or he sees a huge opportunity to make a fortune selling books to ignorant christians.

Ding, ding, ding..... I think we have a winner!I book stating the earth is 10000 years old, written by a guy with an Ivy League degree in palentology? Crazy Christians would snap that up!!!!!

[WrongWay 0]

He did? Where? Have you read his dissertation? What did he say that you base this declaration on? How is this different from a "scientist" who doesn't believe in life after deatha nd goes about looking for bits and pieces of science to explain it away? The young earth theory is, to me, quite bizarre, and pretty much seamless and unassailable.

If the guy studied all the evidence on the fossil record, radio dating, geology of metamorphisus, etc. But still holds the belief that the earth is 10,000 years old, then he is not a sceintist. He's refusing to toss an idea that has been shown to be incorrect.

[Mattnxtc 0]

noan old earth is not a matter of belief. it is as proven a scientific fact as that the earth revolves around the sun.i guess you don't recall the 5+ other times it was pointed out in similar discussions you were present for in this forum that carbon dating has a very limited useful range and is NOT used to age the earth.

no i dont recall all ur posts uve made on this forum over the past some odd months...ive had quite a bit of other stuff going on

[11 to 1 0]

Ding, ding, ding..... I think we have a winner!I book stating the earth is 10000 years old, written by a guy with an Ivy League degree in palentology? Crazy Christians would snap that up!!!!!

OK, U of RI is not Ivy League. No one said he was writing a book. he is just a guy who got a degree and someone ELSE made money making a big deal of his faith. So far all he did was be a successful student.

[BWToth 0]

OK, U of RI is not Ivy League. No one said he was writing a book. he is just a guy who got a degree and someone ELSE made money making a big deal of his faith. So far all he did was be a successful student.

Well, I for one am curious as to how he reconciles his scientific findings with his religious beliefs.

[11 to 1 0]

Well, I for one am curious as to how he reconciles his scientific findings with his religious beliefs.

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.”

Sounds to me like some pretty creative compartmentalization. There was a young earth guy on an evolution board I used to post on, on AOL. As I understand it, what they believe is that humankind started on one earth and that the Ark/Flood scenario is the destruction of old earth and that God set the Ark down on a brand new earth (ark as spaceship). I can't remember his whole justification, but they have this kind of semi-schizo explanation through Scripture of how the science can all be "right" and they can also be right. Thing is, they don't object to the science like Creation"Science" people do, they just explain Scripture differently to make it fit for them.

[BWToth 0]

Sounds to me like some pretty creative compartmentalization. There was a young earth guy on an evolution board I used to post on, on AOL. As I understand it, what they believe is that humankind started on one earth and that the Ark/Flood scenario is the destruction of old earth and that God set the Ark down on a brand new earth (ark as spaceship). I can't remember his whole justification, but they have this kind of semi-schizo explanation through Scripture of how the science can all be "right" and they can also be right. Thing is, they don't object to the science like Creation"Science" people do, they just explain Scripture differently to make it fit for them.

I forgot I was too lazy to read the whole thing.

[crowTrobot 2]

they just explain Scripture differently to make it fit for them.

as you do with the NT

[hblask 1]

Ignoring the speficics of Young Earth philosophy, how/why could someone go through an entire Ph.D Doctoral process on a subject while stating certain views which he supports with evidence while at the same time holding a totally opposite perspective? And is there any obligation from the university to ensure that the person actually believes his own work, or does the work speak for itslef, or what?I'm just confused by this whole thing.

The cognitive dissonance he experiences daily will lead him to become a mass murderer someday. Watch for his name at the next mall shootings.