Creationist earns Ph.D., gets attacked by scientists
by KrauzeA young-earth creationist has received a doctoral degree in geoscience, and some scientists are already demanding that his degree should be taken away from him. The owner of the Ph.D. is named Marcus Ross, and his dissertation was about 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. Although his thesis advisor describes his work as "impeccable", some have "argued that his religious beliefs should bar him from earning an advanced degree in paleontology", according to the New York Times (subscription required).
The article cites Michael L. Dini, a professor of biology at Texas Tech University, who got into hot water in 2003, when he denied writing letters of recommendation to students who rejected the evolution of humans, regardless of the students' grades. According to him, scientists "ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science. That's what Ph.D. stands for."
That's an odd complaint. Dr. Ross wrote an impeccable dissertation that the University of Rhode Island thought merited a Ph.D. Does professor Dini think that you can just breeze through a doctoral education without understanding the subject? At what university did he take his degree, and can I go there?
News of Marcus Ross' degree also reached the ears of Paul Z. Myers, a professor of biology at University of Minnesota, Morris. On his blog, Pharyngula, he calls Ross a "trained parrot" and wants the university to "review their doctoral programs". Of course, he doesn't specify exactly which steps the university should have taken to prevent this travesty to be inflicted on Science. Should Marcus Ross have been forced to sign a statement, pledging eternal loyalty to Evolution and an Old Earth? Should he have undergone a polygraph test, ensuring that he didn't harbor any counter-consensus ideas? Myers think that Ross carrying out research he didn't agree with justifies labelling him a "fraud":
He was doing "research" on the distribution of mosasaurs 65 million years ago, but what he was actually doing was echoing ideas he disagreed with to fit the expectations of his advisors - he was a complete fraud.
Is that how Myers think you get a doctoral degree? Just by "echoing ideas" As for Ross not believing the statements about millions of years from his own dissertation, that's the beauty of science - it doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not. As long as Ross' data and arguments hold up, it doesn't matter one bit what his beliefs are.
Is it a coincidence that Myers wants to force creationists to advocate their creationist beliefs in their scientific work? After all, he is also the one who thinks that researchers who are friendly towards intelligent design should be denied tenure. So if you privately have a telic perspective on the origin of life, you're a fraud, and if you openly advocate this perspective, you will be denied tenure. Head I wins, tail you lose.
Don't forget, PZ Myers and Michael Dini are both scientists. Or, as you also call them, peer reviewers.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
It is amazing how petty and easily threatened these people are. I can't help but be reminded of Francis Bacon's insight that athiests themselves are not really convinced of their own arguments.
Comment by Jehu — February 12, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
PZ's views align well with the thought allegiance required by the Third Reich.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Why is the title of this column, "Creationist earns Ph.D Gets Attacked by Scientists" Why can't it be, "Scientist earns Ph.D. Gets Attacked by Athiest Thought Police."
Comment by Jehu — February 12, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I think ol' Marcus can handle himself:
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_di...
Comment by Doug — February 12, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Hi Jehu,
Because that would be hyperbole. PZ and Dini are narrowminded bigots, but calling them "thought police" would be an insult to anyone who's ever suffered under a real thought police. It would make me no better than the critics who complain about the "Christo-Taliban" or the "Jesus Gestapo".
(Although, on second thought, maybe I should have called it, "Creationist earns Ph.D., gets attacked by fellow scientists" instead.)
Comment by Krauze — February 12, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
The real irony of this sort of behavior is that PZ does not seem to be aware of what he is setting himself up for.
If it is reasonable for his segment of the academic community to behave like this and deny tenure/PhD's, etc, to those he disagrees with, regardless of the actual quality of the work, but just on ideological grounds, does he realise that there are whole humanities departments that are willing to do the same thing to him and his peers, and this sort of behavior will justify them doing the same sort of thing.
If ideology is legitimate in science as PZ is contending, then he may find himself hoist by his own petard.
Comment by thesciphishow — February 12, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
There is another angle on this story. PZ et al. have stuck their finger in the eye of methodological naturalism. By all objective measures, Ross succeeded as a methodological naturalist. His sin? He didn't proceed outward from the methodological naturalism.
And what makes the story even more interesting is another personality quoted in the NYT story - Eugenie Scott. She comes across as someone who is on PZ's side on this one. Could the leading type A critic be making signs that she is ready to throw methodological naturalism overboard?
Comment by MikeGene — February 12, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Hey that is a really good point. Now if there was just some way to point this out to her ?
Comment by thesciphishow — February 12, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
February 12th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Here's the relevant excerpt to chew over.
The article mentions Dr. Case, who thinks it is frightening if universities begin enforcing belief systems. Then, we read:
Comment by MikeGene — February 12, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
February 13th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Prior to Marcus Ross earning his PhD, many in the ID community were fearful he would become another Brian Leonard. Mutual friends communicated to me Ross's extreme distress last year.
Like Kurt Wise, Ross's YEC views were public knowledge for years. Even before receiving a PhD, he was co-author with Paul Nelson in a Chapter of Darwin's Nemesis. The chapter was titled, "YEC and ID" but the bulk of the written material was published May 2005 here in Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 13, 2007 @ 12:03 am
February 13th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Hey Mike,
As with Sternberg, this is another case where, given how she portrays herself and her organization, you'd expect her to come down on a different side from what she actually did. Personally, I've always had serious doubts about Scott's Type-A status (even before you named it such). From her signing of the Humanist Manifesto III, to her participations in the pseudo-religious Darwin Day, to her participation with the Jesus Seminar, I've long suspected that her agenda and reasons for being in involved in this whole thing are not as pure as the wind-driven snow, as she'd like to present them. Seems to me she's just been doing the present-yourself-as-friendly-to-Christianity thing for PR reasons, not because she believes in it. She's only been acting as a methodological Type-A critic
Comment by Deuce — February 13, 2007 @ 9:56 am
February 13th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I'm actually glad the DDs bring the subject of 'intellectual honesty' to the table, because it so glaringly highlights the intellectual dishonesty in their own midst. PZ and Moran (and their cohorts) are very much true to their belief system and can't be accused of dishonesty. Even if occasional inconsistency does creep in, which happens to most everybody.
I notice something in the complaints and comments in this case that highlights the most common inconsistency that EA purists indulge in - the Chicken Little act about American hegemony in science and how because secondary science education is so bad, the US no longer produces enough scientists to maintain it.
The complaint here is that a YEC was admitted to a Ph.D. program when there are limited available positions and more qualified applicants [metaphysically speaking] who end up doing something else with their lives because Ross got the spot.
IOW, our higher education system is producing way more qualified Ph.D. candidates in science than there are Ph.D. programs and post-grad research jobs to accommodate them! Let's face it. Only in such conditions would a candidate's personal metaphysical beliefs be more important than his/her knowledge, understanding and ability in the science, as evidenced by master's-level accomplishment and methodological criteria.
The same situation has decimated university departments in humanities and other disciplines that attracted too many students in the past. Eventually glutting the fields beyond carrying capacity and leaving many qualified young graduates without a prayer of livelihood in their chosen professions. Supply and demand. Looks like some fields of science have now maxed out their limit and are in the very same predicament.
So much for the "American hegemony in science" canard. Guess I'll have to have a serious talk with my grandson about his paleontological ambitions.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2007 @ 11:34 am
February 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
It seems that Ross believes the Earth gives the appearance of being old without it actually being old. This is not a view I endorse, but it seems rationally coherent at least. As long as he understands the science and goes by it in his work, there should be no problem at all.
Comment by Crandaddy — February 13, 2007 @ 4:14 pm