Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules

[Dover]

February 12, 2007
Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules
By CORNELIA DEAN

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?”....>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=science&pagewanted=print



Are fundamentalist/creationists worming their way into academia as they did government?

[Kutjara]

1. Nice bit of doublethink.

He goes through the motions of scientific discourse, the way an actor goes through the motions of playing a character. But he doesn't believe science actually describes reality.

He is presumably just doing this to get his PhD, so that he can start teaching and publishing creationist claptrap, lending it the false credibility of his "respectable" credentials.

[trotsky]

2. You are 100% correct.

He is presumably just doing this to get his PhD, so that he can start teaching and publishing creationist claptrap, lending it the false credibility of his "respectable" credentials.

That is EXACTLY why these lying cheating cretinists (oops, did I misspell that?) lie and cheat their way to degrees from respectable organizations. Nothing like a little lying and cheating to spread the Word of Gawd.

[Rabrrrrrr]

27. I think that's entirely it - "I'll spout the bullshit to get the degree,

then use the degree from an acredited college to legitimate my insanity".

I've read some of the Creation Science bullshit, and I can already this asshole's book in my mind because I know exactly what it will say about "science", and about his experience "playing the game" and how he was the only student there who really understood what "50 million years" means, secretly laughing at and also crying for the ignorance of his fellow Ph.D. students and his professors; and how was forced to use the "science speak that the atheist majority demands" and other bullshit, and then say "And I graduated from a prestigious college that doesn't hand out Ph.D.s to just anyone, so really, you can trust me".

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. This fellow gives new meaning

to the concept of pluralistic thinking. What an amazing skill! Kind of boggles the mind, really.

[Evoman]

5. Welcome back, stranger.

I haven't seen you around these parts in quite a while. How are you?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. Thanks so much

I'm out of the hospital, back to work, even off all the nasty meds that gave me back my ability to breathe. I find myself very happy to be on the planet still.

[charlie]

13. Gads

I didn't know you were IN the hospital. If it's serious, I hope it's been fixed. It's good to see you again TG, I missed you.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. Yes, all fixed

I hope! I think I'm the new poster child for the cardiac unit.

[charlie]

20. Lol

You're well enough to come back into this elbow-throwing forum, I'll take that as a heartening indication of your health. It's really good to see you again. Now, if we hear from BMUS, we'll have a worry-free February :hi:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. Oh Dear, is Scottie missing?

I know she takes breaks at times. Maybe that's it.

[charlie]

26. This is one of her longer ones

She wrote me on the 2nd of last month, haven't heard from her since. I like to imagine she's told her fundie employers to stuff it and finally made that escape to Vermont.

[JerseygirlCT]

10. Hey! Good to see you back! nt

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. Good to be back. Thank you.

[varkam]

12. Welcome back, TG.

I'm glad you are well :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. You are kind...thx.

[Evoman]

4. This boggles the mind.

I can almost understand this type of thinking from somebody with no exposure to science, but once you actually start learning, how can you undo, or ignore, everything that you KNOW is true?

To be completely honest, I have a hard time imagining how any scientist can be religious at all. I know it happens, but I don't understand it.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. So long as you don't need to read scriptures literally

(Which really turns them into the literary equivalent of reading a cereal box -- all surface, no depth), there's no conflict.

In simplistic terms, science is the how, religion the why. Studying science can be a way of learning about the wonders of creation, and need not conflict in the least with religious belief.

Unless, of course, your belief is bound up in treating the Bible as textbook. That won't work with science, because that won't work with logic, either.

But a great huge chunk of Christianity does not treat the Bible that way. Judaism doesn't treat scripture that way, either.

Literalism is the problem, because it's intellectually dishonest.

[Evoman]

21. I've heard this explanation before, and it still doesn't make sense.

"In simplistic terms, science is the how, religion the why. Studying science can be a way of learning about the wonders of creation, and need not conflict in the least with religious belief. "

What gives religion the authority to answer "why" questions. Religion really doesn't answer ANYTHING as far as I'm concerned. It just makes stuff up and pretends it has answers. Can you give me an example of a why question that religion can answer convincingly?

"Studying science can be a way of learning about the wonders of creation"

Everything I learned in my science classes seems to argue against any "wonders of creation". There is no creation.


"Literalism is the problem, because it's intellectually dishonest."

It is a big problem, but it is not the only problem. Believing things like "jesus rose from the dead" or "Mary was a virgin", things that many non-literal, liberal christians believe, is antithetical to what we have learned in science. Unless your willing to completely elimate all that magical/miracle stuff (which if you did, the bible becomes next to useless as anything but a book of badly written folk tales), your still partitioning your mind like the guy above, to some extent.

Again, being a good scientists means training yourself not to jump to conclusions, learning to question sources, and following the evidence carefully to it conclusion, and not extrapolating past that. If any scientist read a book that makes crazy magical claims, has no references, and believed anything in its pages without evidence or experimentation, then I would call that person a bad scientist. And that is what christians, and other religious people do, IMO. You HAVE TO do what this guy does (although may be to a lesser extreme) to be both a christian and a scientist.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. Not really

What gives religion the authority (why) is the believer. Of course, someone who isn't religious isn't going to use religion to investigate that question. But in this example, we're talking about the theoretical scientist who is a believer, not a non-believer.

Ditto to your creation comment. For the purposes of the illustration, there is creation -- in some sense, anyway. The extent of the creator's "hands-on" approach can certainly vary.

As to miracles and science: I think you're looking to science to do something that's not exactly what it's there for. Science rarely says "never". It says "has not been proven to be so". I'd say the biggest characteristic needed in a scientist is a mind open to all possibilities. We learn new things every day -- some of them would have been considered utter nonsense in scientific circles only 100 years ago. The absolute truth of the resurrection, Jesus' miracles... all those things fall into a gray area. Since we're not there, there's probably no way to either prove them or refute them. So it goes back to how you understand them, if you choose to understand them. I'm not sure the language of science will be very helpful there.

[Evoman]

25. I shall have to hold on my position.

"What gives religion the authority (why) is the believer. Of course, someone who isn't religious isn't going to use religion to investigate that question. But in this example, we're talking about the theoretical scientist who is a believer, not a non-believer."

Of course the believer give religion authority. Thats the point. Giving religion authority, when it can not give evidence for its propositions, is intellectually unworthy of a scientist. Religion has been wrong on so many damned things, its scary. And diluting it enough that you can be a scientist and not look ridiculous is no way to go, IMO.

"Ditto to your creation comment. For the purposes of the illustration, there is creation -- in some sense, anyway. The extent of the creator's "hands-on" approach can certainly vary."

There is no creation. The only area where we can not almost positively say there hasn't been creation is the beginning of the universe. Thats the only place god can hide, and thats only for the meantime.

"As to miracles and science: I think you're looking to science to do something that's not exactly what it's there for. "

I don't understand...what am I looking for science to do? Am I looking for it to disprove god? Of course not....but I really think that if a scientist can't find evidence of god using science, than a theologian mentally masterbating in his rectory certainly can't. The only difference is that scientists are intellectually honest about not knowing the whole truth.


"Science rarely says "never". It says "has not been proven to be so"."

Religious claims are so unlikely statistically with what we know about the universe, than we can get within a few percentages of never.


" I'd say the biggest characteristic needed in a scientist is a mind open to all possibilities."

I don't know what the heck you mean by an open mind. An open mind to me is a mind that, when shown evidence, changes. That is important, yes. But usually what religious people/woo woos mean by an open mind is "blindingly give credence to any bullshit that spews from my mouth". A mind that open has no brains left.

" We learn new things every day -- some of them would have been considered utter nonsense in scientific circles only 100 years ago. "

This is true.

"The absolute truth of the resurrection, Jesus' miracles... all those things fall into a gray area."

No it doesn't. Resurrection and Jesus's miracles almost certainly did not happen. Its certainly not gray....maybe a dark navy color. Maybe.

"Since we're not there, there's probably no way to either prove them or refute them."

Yes we can refute them. We can study people who have been dead for 3 days, and see how many of them are resurrected after that time. If we do it over and over, and nobody ever resurrects, then we can be fairly sure it didn't happen in the past. Not 100 percent, but close enough, I think, to use the word certain.

" So it goes back to how you understand them, if you choose to understand them. I'm not sure the language of science will be very helpful there."

And the language of religion is even less helpful.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Oh c'mon

You know what? This:

"religious people/woo woos"

is below even your usual sardonic self.

Is it really necessary to resort to name-calling in order to have this conversation?

[Evoman]

30. Probably not. I apologize.

It was wrong to belittle other people by calling them names. If anything, I should belittle them by smashing them with my massive intellect. Hehe.

Your right though.

Edit: On second thought, woo woo is not THAT offensive a term. But I hold to my apology, because I meant to use it in the worst possible meaning of the word.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. You usually do quite well using only your

powerful intellect.

So I was surprised at the resort to woo woo.

We'll continue to go round and round on this one, as our world-views just plain differ here.

My take on religion is of the questioning, intellectually as well as spiritually curious, and tolerant type. You've obviously run into a few too many of something else.

I see no need for conflict between religion and science. As a matter of fact, my new Presiding Bishop (Episcopal Church) is a scientist herself.

[cyborg_jim]

31. Since when has that been 'absolute truth'?

The absolute truth of the resurrection, Jesus' miracles... all those things fall into a gray area.

Try telling me that ten years ago and I might have agreed with you. Fortunately actual investigation of the truth has revealed otherwise.

Miracles? Never happened. Ever. They can exist only where fantasy is allowed to thrive and investigation is shunned.

[redqueen]

33. Glad to find something we agree on!

If ever things occurred which were called 'miracles' at the time, then I'm positive there are perfectly valid scientific explanations for those things. Just like the 'healing magic' that, after some studying, turned out to be nothing more miraculous than pharmacology.

[hunter]

6. It's astonishing how twisted some people can get.

Look at the preachers who decry homosexuality from their Sunday pulpits after spending long Saturday nights with homosexual hookers.

Some creationists are attracted to paleontology in the same way.

But my favorite paleontologists have always been the ones who come out of the creationist closet as a kind of rebellion against their fundamentalist family beliefs.

"Guess what, Mom! I'm gonna be a Paleontologist!"

Mom gasps and faints, and dad disowns the sinful kid and runs him out of the house with a shotgun.

You know what would be really, really funny? If this guy was only saying this because his parents are still supporting him.

:evilgrin:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. The word "twist" is very apropos here!

[hunter]

22. Hello, TallahasseeGrannie!

It's so good to see you back.

:hug:

[cosmik debris]

7. Paleontology is NOT a paradigm

It is a scientific study.

Just more of the language games they play. If they can rename science as a paradigm and fact as theory, then there is still room for them to debate their superstition.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. Excellent point

that word really is overused.

[Odin2005]

19. Calling Paleontology a "paradigm" is Postmodernist rhetoric at work

According to the PoMo idiots Science is "just another grand narrative," no different then mythology or religious dogma. PoMo rhetoric is used constantly by anti-science creeps, from Global Warming Denialists to Creationists.

[Rabrrrrrr]

34. Yet another example of the fundies holding two opposite things as true:

The fundy fucks use PoMo thinking to say that science is crap in order to defend their sick (and heretical) literal interpretation of the Bible (which isn't, by the way, a strict literal interpretation even though they think it is), while at the same time decrying PoMo thinking as anti-Christian and the work of the devil because it denies the absolute truth of the Bible and authority of Scripture.



They like always to have things both ways.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. Honestly, I don't understand how he can do this

It's quite possible to believe in the Biblical creation story, while assuming perhaps that the timeline there is God's, not our conventional understanding of time. (I'm not really of that camp, but I understand it).

But to simultaneously believe two contradictory things like that... it's got to be so hard!

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Ability to compartmentalize.

If it works for him, and he's not planning on using it for evil ends, I say good for him.

We all have to work with a degree of cognitive dissonance. At least he admits it.