Public Universities and Creationists

[dcmdale]

Interesting article in today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/sc...syahoo&emc=rss

"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?"

[jeff]

Definitely an interesting article. What's being discussed is a guy, Marcus Ross, who is a "young earth creationist" (that is, for religious reasons believes that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, consistent with a literal reading of the Bible), yet at the same time he's just received his PhD in geosciences on the subject of dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period, which ended approx 65 million years ago, in a thesis that uses scientifically appropriate dates that conflict with "young earth" creationism.

The response from the scientific community hits the following notes: the guy's work is good and done in a purely scientific context, hence he's earned his doctorate. So, he was not denied his degree. At the same time, people are worried that he might use the authority conferred by his degree to promote a creationist agenda entirely in conflict with the science upon which that degree was conferred. This concern has a valid basis: this has happened in the past, for example, creationists seizing on technical differences between scientific camps (eg: the punctuated equilibrium debates) to discredit an entire subject. So, this concern is entirely reasonable.

What's interesting to me is what this guy is thinking. Has he really managed to compartmentalize and accept two mutually exclusive views of the world, so he accepts one when in "science mode" and otherwise accepts the creationist view? There are pithy sayings about people believing two contradictory ideas at the same time, but I'm not sure how to apply them here. Or, is the creationist belief system the one he sincerely believes, and the rest is pretend? That's a lot of hard work to spend earning a doctorate in a branch of science one believes to be completely false.

[OROD]

Maybe he has split-personality disorder?

.

[jeff]

Not that that has never happened to a grad student before!

[jessicasimpson]

So this guy could be discredited with his own thesis? It would be hard to discredit an entire branch of science when you can be countered with your own publication

[passata_sotto]

I thought the article brought up a lot of things we should all think about and be concerned about. I gave a copy of it to my son who is a philosophy major who does not agree with the majority of the "stuff" he is "taught".

[Xenoflame]

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.”

Innovation is a literal impossibility if would-be innovators are constricted to only what is "standard."

That is not religious discrimination, she added, it is discrimination “on the basis of science.”

If the criteria for discrimination is the religious view of a person in question, it is by definition religious discrimination. The fact that the so-called "standard science" is in support of this discrimination is irrelevant.

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.”

Clearly, Dr. Ross is able to do "good science" and understands the philosophy of science. To understand a branch of philosophy and to agree with contemporary ideas are completely different notions.

[mrbiggs]

Innovation is a literal impossibility if would-be innovators are constricted to only what is "standard."

True, but if I say the sky is pink should my opinion be considered valid in case I am an innovator?

In other words, it's one thing to propose theories that are supported by something. It's another to believe in something completely opposed to science, with no scientific reason to back it up.

If the criteria for discrimination is the religious view of a person in question, it is by definition religious discrimination. The fact that the so-called "standard science" is in support of this discrimination is irrelevant.

Not at all. An atheist who believed that the world was 6,000 years old would be treated exactly the same way. Therefore, not religious discrimination.


I don't think that someone's personal beliefs should affect their scientific standing, so long as he keeps them separate. I just disagreed with your arguments.

[jBirch]

I think the danger in rejecting candidates based on their espoused beliefs is twofold:

1) It pushes underground the expression of religious thought at universities for fear of reprisal. This limits intellectual inquiry into matters of philosophy and history.

2) It turns universities into churches of science, intolerant of discussion in opposition to scientific dogma (no matter how far out the ideas may be).

It's really the latter that worries me the most.

Science should not fear religion and should not fear the use that truth is put to. If the candidate in question was able to contribute to scientific discourse at a level appropriate to a PhD, then why should the university withhold the conference of a fair and open certificate? That many people are easily deceived does not detract from the truth that the student was able to create and defend a work of original scientific research. The university, as a beacon of truth, must confer a degree when one is warrented. To interject an ideological evaluation is to be hypocritical and unethical. It is to return to a day when the whims of power determined subjectively what truth is rather then rigourous scrutiny and absolute proof.

One of the things best about the scientific method is that truth trumps ideology every time. It doesn't matter whether the entire scientific community thinks you're retarded, if you also happen to be right.

James.

[noodle]

I gave a copy of it to my son who is a philosophy major who does not agree with the majority of the "stuff" he is "taught".

if your son seriously is trying to "agree" with everything he's taught as a philosophy major, he might want to change majors. that is definitely not anywhere near the point of a phil undergrad degree. and i only took a few phil classes.

[jBirch]

Found this today, and figured I'd share:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm

James.

[jeff]

Great link, James. Thanks for sharing it. Asimov always had insightful things to say.

And, those "50 page theses" being discussed right now in the "I passed!" thread - he was so prolific he would have tossed it off in an aftenoon's work!

[feinte]

Very elegant argument, thanks for referring to it.

I recently read of a Pew survey which reported that c. 20% of Americans believe the sun revolves about the earth.

The scary thing is that many of these people may be voters.

[jeff]

The really scary thing is that some of them are policy-setting public officials...

[marge]

As an English major, I feel compelled to ask -- when did "doing good science" become proper English?

[jeff]

Why do you object? "doing" is gerund form of the infinitive "to do", and "doing good science" is a gerund phrase. What are they doing? "science"/ What is the nature of that science? It is "good", as its adjective. There are many similar formations, eg: "doing well by doing good" (in which "good" serves as the noun). The expressions "good science" and "bad science" are commonly used. "What is the researcher doing? He is doing good science. Oh, let's renew his grant". You could recast the fragment as "doing science well", but that's author's choice.

[jBirch]

You could recast the fragment as "doing science well", but that's author's choice.

Actually, I think there's a movie called "Doing Good Science". It's not for children.

James.

[jeff]

Google had 77,500,000 hits on that phrase (which certainly shows it's in common parlance), but I didn't see any movie reference on the first page - I'll take your word for it!

[Peach]

Don't drag that gerund in there, it isn't needed! "good" is an adjective, "science" is a noun, and that's all you need: an adjective modifying a noun.

Of course, "How's your science doing?" "It's doing real good, thanks." is also perfectly acceptable informal English. I reserve my English-teacher bile for (obviously) mis-apostrophization as well as for tense shifts, subject-verb disagreements, unintentionally comic dangling participles, and pronouns without obvious referents.

[jeff]

The adjective-noun pair is already there and not a problem, but it's not the subject of the verb either (as in your example "It's doing real good, thanks.") The science is not "doing", it is done by the subject (unspecified in Marge's fragment). Consider the following:

"What is Sam doing this year?" (use of -ing form to indicate an ongoing activity)
"Sam is doing science."
'"Is it going well?"
"Yes, Sam is doing good science"

"-ing" is used in each sentence in that dialogue. The construction seems valid to me as an exampte of the present progressive tense (also called present continuous). See for example http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/tenses.html

As Strunk and White say, when it's unclear, recast the sentence. However, the meaning doesn't seem to be unclear.

Unless one is the most prescriptive of grammarians, I don't see this running afoul of the Grammar Police. As you say, there are sins against grammar committed every day. It's not at all clear that this is one of them.