First, there is entirely too much focus on the issue of whether he gets a PhD or not. That is a legalistic issue, and I for one don't care that much.

So? Others critics do, as they wring their hands deciding whether to impose their litmus tests from their positions of power.

I guess it is not shocking that there are lots of people who get doctrates without having a sincere belief in the truths of their field, but it is shocking that people should so vehemently defend this as a good thing. Any area of human endeavor will attract liars and mediocrities, but that doesn't mean we should celebrate them.

I'm not defending this as a good thing. I am reacting to the extremists who recklessly accuse Ross of being a liar, who think he shouldn't have been awarded a PhD, who think beliefs matter more than accomplishments, who make up stories about Ross needing massive amounts of remedial instruction, etc. To me, it all looks like a bunch of convoluted rationalizations to disguise raw bigotry.

Second, YEC and ID are entirely different in this context. ID, as I understand it, tries to reconcile its metaphysics with the generally accepted facts of science. YEC contradicts the generally accepted facts. I don't see how they are comparable.

LOL. So now YEC and ID are entirely different. I agree. But according to experts like Nick Matzke, they are one and the same. In fact, all the extremist critics equate ID with creationism. I thus seems reasonable to assume that the extremists are using the YEC example as a proxy to advance an agenda to prohibit ID folks from getting PhDs. But rather than simply assume, let's give the critics one more chance to go on record:

So let's change the topic from YEC to ID, as the critics make a HUGE fuss over their not being enough ID research. It would be nice if great ape now told us whether an ID advocate, whose accomplishments are equal to other non-ID students, should likewise be denied a PhD.

"Potty-mouthed" Does anyone really talk that way?

Yes, it is a term commonly used to describe someone with a vulgar vocabulary. I am beginning to seriously doubt your claims to being well educated.

I promised to stay out but I see you are still misinterpreting my position, so let me explain it to you slowly.

No matter how slow you say it, you are quite obviously attempting to back pedal out of an untenable position.

I believe people shouldn't be hypocrites, so a YEC, like anyone else, should not espouse theories that contradict their real beliefs. If that results in a YEC being unable to get a Ph.D., that's the breaks of having beliefs and the integrity to stand behind them.

Are you now allowing that a YEC can get a Ph.D. in paleontology withot being a hyporcrite? That certainely doesn't appear to have been your position throughout this thread.

Can you understand the difference between that chain of reasoning and what you said? You have a doctorate yourself, it shouldn't be that difficult.

It seems to me that you have made a distinction without a difference. Let's see if you will acknowledge that a YEC can get a Ph.D. without being a hypocrite or if you want to maintain that YEC's shouldn't get Ph.D.'s. You can't have it both ways.

I promised to stay out but I see you are still misinterpreting my position, so let me explain it to you slowly.

You said:

Uh-huh, but you spent this entire thread saying that if YEC's get Ph.D.'s they are hypocrites. So, to follow your logic, if YEC's can't get Ph.D.'s without being hypocrites (as you claim) and they shouldn't be hypocrites (as you also insist), then you are clearly advocating that YEC's shouldn't get Ph.D.'s.

No. I believe people shouldn't be hypocrites, so a YEC, like anyone else, should not espouse theories that contradict their real beliefs. If that results in a YEC being unable to get a Ph.D., that's the breaks of having beliefs and the integrity to stand behind them.

Can you understand the difference between that chain of reasoning and what you said? You have a doctorate yourself, it shouldn't be that difficult.

the only argument I've seen from you is that getting a PhD is matter of meeting some formal requirements. I maintain that it's not, that it implies a level of professional and personal commitment. I don't think we're going to settle this issue, it's more a matter of point of view.

No, it is not a matter of a point of view, it is a matter of fact. Look at the Ph.D. requirements for any school. Show me one that has a requirement that the candidate personally believe certain things. And please don't confuse belief with "professional and personal commitment."

If there is a difference between "silence" and "filter" it is trivial. You want to stop those whom you oppose from having voices in certain forums of public discourse. That is an attempt to silence oppostion.

No. Someone who is silenced has no way to express themselves. Someone who gets filtered out of a particular forum still has plenty of other options. And most fora impose some kind of filter. Science doesn't let flat-earthers or YECs publish in their pages, and the Baptist Church down the road won't let me present a slideshow on evolution and free love. That's the rules.

The Baptist Church claims to operate on a basis of revealed knowledge. That is not how Science operates. An article should be published or denied in a peer review journal based on the content of the article, not the beliefs of the author. A research Ph.D. should be awarded on the basis of whether the candidate has produced academic research that is of a publishable standard (even if not actually published) and that represents a contribution to human knowledge, not on the basis of his or her "beliefs."

and for you to claim that YEC's should not get Ph.D.'s but those who believe in abiogenesis should is inconsistent.

I never said that YEC's shouldn't get PhDs. All I am saying is that people shouldn't be hypocrites.

Uh-huh, but you spent this entire thread saying that if YEC's get Ph.D.'s they are hypocrites. So, to follow your logic, if YEC's can't get Ph.D.'s without being hypocrites (as you claim) and they shouldn't be hypocrites (as you also insist), then you are clearly advocating that YEC's shouldn't get Ph.D.'s.

If Ross is a YEC, yet in his research puts forward a billion-year age for the earth, then he's lying to his doctoral committee and the academic community at large.

I doubt very much he said things like, "I believe the earth is a billion years old." He probably did say things like, "these fossils were found in a layer of strata identified in the literature as cretaceous." Or something to that effect.

I'm going to drop out of this thread unless somebody actually says something new. It's been real. I thought leftist postmodernists had a fucked-up notion of truth, but it's nothing compared to you guys.

Getting potty mouthed and running off is a poor defense mechanism to cope with being demolished in a debate. But if that is all you have …

If there is a difference between "silence" and "filter" it is trivial. You want to stop those whom you oppose from having voices in certain forums of public discourse. That is an attempt to silence oppostion.

No. Someone who is silenced has no way to express themselves. Someone who gets filtered out of a particular forum still has plenty of other options. And most fora impose some kind of filter. Science doesn't let flat-earthers or YECs publish in their pages, and the Baptist Church down the road won't let me present a slideshow on evolution and free love. That's the rules.

and for you to claim that YEC's should not get Ph.D.'s but those who believe in abiogenesis should is inconsistent.

I never said that YEC's shouldn't get PhDs. All I am saying is that people shouldn't be hypocrites. If Ross is a YEC, yet in his research puts forward a billion-year age for the earth, then he's lying to his doctoral committee and the academic community at large.

I'm going to drop out of this thread unless somebody actually says something new. It's been real. I thought leftist postmodernists had a fucked-up notion of truth, but it's nothing compared to you guys.

So now we are requiring that Ph. D. theses be confessions of faith, and by that we mean a written endorsement of a set of narrow beliefs.
That's science?!

No, it's not. Nor do I think these guys know what they're talking about. They're apparently frightened by the fact that an openly YEC individual earned a Ph.D. in science by doing "impeccable" science. As if that spells ultimate doom for geoscience or something.

They want it to be a sign of dishonesty, but it's not. They want it to be a sign of hypocrisy, but it's not. It's simply a bright, talented grad student earning a Ph.D. in the usual way in his chosen field. Happens all the time somewhere in academia.

You'd think they'd be glad he's teaching at Liberty, just to keep him out of the rarified halls of the Great Ivory Tower Cathedral of Scientistic Orthodoxy. Strangely though, they don't seem to know that no such cathedral exists.

If its not the difference in belief, then what is it?

The difference here is critical.

Because it is all about beliefs.

What was the degree Darwin earned at Christ's College? You'll never hear what it is from Darwin! Indeed, its quite difficult to determine exactly what was the only college degree ever earned by Charles Darwin!
What's the secret?

A written (signed) confession of faith was required of the very famous scientist to earn his only college degree. Which he in all sincerity and fully accepting, despite some initial "scruples," endorsed.

Later, having basically renounced this confession of faith, this scientist went on to earn just about every academic honor that his peers could bestow, and is generally recognized as one of the most important scientists in history. He is even buried in Westminister Abbey, near Newton; ironically neither of whom could be described as "orthodox" in their beliefs.

So now we are requiring that Ph. D. theses be confessions of faith, and by that we mean a written endorsement of a set of narrow beliefs.

That's science?!

This is getting extremely tedious, since you keep repeating the same things I just replied to. I'm about ready to stop this.

In fact you did not respond to the arguments I repeated. And I will continue to repeat arguments that you sidestep and fail to address.

For example, a doctorate is a degree that is attained by the completion of the educational requirements. Research doctorates are awarded in recognition of academic research that is of a publishable standard (even if not actually published) and that represents a contribution to human knowledge. It is not the recognition of "beliefs."

Um, no. "filter" does not equal "silence". And I'm all for people disagreeing with me if they do so honestly (and preferably in an interesting way, rather than "does not!" / "does too!" style).

You have a penchant for accusing those who disagree with you of dishonesty. That is intellectual weakness on your part. Why not attempt a cogent argument instead?

If there is a difference between "silence" and "filter" it is trivial. You want to stop those whom you oppose from having voices in certain forums of public discourse. That is an attempt to silence oppostion. The fact that you have no problem with them posting on the internet or perhaps banging out their opinion in morse code with a tin cup on their cell block wall is not significant.

You probably have no problem with those who believe in abiogenesis getting a Ph.D., which demolishes any claim you have to objectivity.

Now who is concerned with belief? Are you implying that people who "believe in abiogenesis" shouldn't be allowed to get a Ph.D.? That would make for awfully small biology departments I'm afraid.

No, I am not implying that those who believe in abiogenesis should not get Ph.D.'s, as I said earlier a doctorate is not a recognition of beliefs. What I am implying is that abiogenesis is clearly refuted by the evidence, and for you to claim that YEC's should not get Ph.D.'s but those who believe in abiogenesis should is inconsistent.