Geologist believes in Biblical Creation

[varun]

Earth is 10,000 years old...how did he get a Ph.D.?


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?em&ex=1171429200&en=a234866b369106cf&ei=5087%0A

Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules
By CORNELIA DEAN


Published: February 12, 2007
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.”...

[Deep13]

1. Then he's not a geologist in any practical sense.

If he chooses to accept belief over fact, he is not practicing science.

[WinkyDink]

2. What an ignorant fool, and ignorant not only of science, but also of world mythologies.

[trotsky]

3. Hmm, I wonder if that's any relation to the discredited Hugh Ross.

My money's on Yes.

[Zhade]

76. See below, and collect your prize!

NT!

[trotsky]

96. Ooh, what do I win?

A phony Ph.D.?

[Stuckinthebush]

4. If I had been on that dissertation committee

He sure wouldn't have gotten a signature from me. I am amazed that his committee approved of such a dissertation.

Amazing.

On edit: It looks like he didn't inject his young-earth beliefs in his dissertation, so I see how his committee would have a difficult time rejecting his work if it was sound. So, in this instance, the community is asking, "Should we deny a degree to someone if we know that their personal beliefs are in contradiction to science?" I'd say that that answer is "no" if they do the work based on established scientific principles. Interesting debate though.

[northzax]

6. but his dissertation was pure science

the committee head said so in the article. the question is whether you can get a degree without believing in what you are doing. He got his degree within the modern scientific framework, he just doesn't believe it.

it would be like me writing a dissertation on religion, I can analyze it from a religious standpoint, I just don't believe it. but if I went to divinity school and completed all the requirements, I should get the degree, right? whether or not I actually believe in it.

[mcscajun]

15. You must wonder if there's a rule concerning "Intellectual honesty"

in evaluating dissertations at that university.

[northzax]

19. hm, bet there isn't

at least not in the sciences. he did work, within the scientific framework, that passed peer review and a review board. what's the problem?

I don't think he was being intellectually dishonest, his dissertation probably never used the words 'i believe' it was a reflection of the rules set up by the institution and science as a whole. the major difference between science and faith is that there is no obligation to believe in science. you simply have to accept the basic rules, and go from there. Which is what he did. there is no faith test, you can either do the work, or you can't.

[mcscajun]

26. Regardless of whatever wording he used, it's intellectually dishonest.

If a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

It would be amazing to read this dissertation and see what linguistic contortions he made (if any) to keep any sense of his belief in what he wrote out of it.

[Selatius]

28. You may be correct, but the dissertation was the subject of peer review, not his beliefs

If his beliefs were taken into account as well as the written dissertation, he wouldn't get a Ph.D. at all, but that's not how a dissertation is reviewed.

[northzax]

31. nor should there be a litmus test

if you can, and do, complete the requirements and do the work, you get the degree. simple as that. why should anyone's religious beliefs matter in science?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. I'm not sure if I agree with that.

I think getting a PhD is more than just a complete thesis. If you show academic dishonesty, that would indicate one is not qualified to be a PhD scientist.

Religious belief has nothing to do with ti.

[Selatius]

42. The definition of intellectual dishonesty can be found in the university guidebook

If what he did violated the parameters regarding intellectual dishonesty, he wouldn't have a Ph.D. He got one, so to me this indicates his religious beliefs were not taken into consideration, just his dissertation alone. I'm fine with that. If somebody else's name was on this dissertation, that person would've gotten a Ph.D. too. If your work is correct, then it wouldn't matter what your private beliefs were. A Ph.D. or a masters or any other degree is not necessarily the end-all, be-all measure of a man's intellect, and it never was, nor can it ever be.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. It says to me...

that he wasn't spouting about Creationism until after he got his PhD, that is, when he found out he could make a buck from it. That is, he doesn't really believe that bullshit. But of course, nobody smart enough to get a PhD really believes in Creationism anyway.

[northzax]

50. no, he was doing it while pursuing his degree

according to the article.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Was his committee aware of it?

[northzax]

63. read the article

they certainly seem to have been.

they said what he believes doesn't matter, what matters is what he does.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. Well then...

perhaps somebody should look into their accreditation.

[northzax]

67. the University of Rhode Island?

they said he wrote an 'impeccable' (from the article) dissertation. if they took his beliefs and comments outside his graduate work and used it to affect their consideration of his graduate work, then I would say yes, revoke accredidation. It is the business of the department to review your work in geology, not religion. that's for the divinity school to consider.

[northzax]

52. but it is about belief

you are arguing that even though he did the work, learned the theory, did the research and fufilled the requirements of his degree, he maybe shouldn't get one because he doesn't 'believe' in it. Science is not about belief, it either is, or it isn't. As Professor Indiana Jones once said, 'Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.' applies to geology as well.

Why does it matter if you believe that something is the case, as long as you demonstrate a mastery of the subject matter and perform the research neccesary? Einstein, for instance, could demonstrate to you how quantum mechanics works, but he didn't believe that it was real, was he being intellectually dishonest?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. If you believe that the earth is 5,000 years old...

then there's no reason a graduate committee should believe that you deserve a PhD in geology.

[northzax]

60. indeed, you have convinced me

public universities should now have a faith-based litmus test.

"I hereby reject the truth of any and religious text that contradict the physical science I am conducting. Anything that cannot be proven though physical science is untrue, this includes the existance of God in all his/her/it's forms, all philosophy, political theory and other belief systems."

That makes total sense. (it's what you are asking for, after all, you are saying that someone's personal beliefs should interfere with their ability to get and education in the public sector, even if they can do the work involved.) I reject that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. It's got nothing to do with faith.

"The earth is 5,000 years old" is a scientific statement. It's a false scientific statement.

Should a holocaust denier be giving a PhD in history? Does academic dishonesty and fraud mean nothing anymore?

[northzax]

66. yes, it does have something to do with faith

it has everything to do with faith. He says he can separate his religious faith (that tells him the Earth is 10,000 years old) with his scientific work, which tells him the current physical evidence is different. This is no different from someone believing in God, while the physical evidence shows no sign of God.

no one has ever physically proven a miracle to a scientific standard, so are all scientists who believe in miracles therefore intellectually dishonest?

I don't understand where your idea of fraud comes from. He did research and wrote a thesis that met the standards of his institution. the fact that he may, or may not, emotionally believe in what he did and wrote does not equate to fraud. He never said that he thinks his thesis is not factual, only that the frame of reference it was written from is not the entire picture.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Any scientist who believes the earth is 5,000 years old...

isn't really a scientist. They'd be liars and frauds.

The fraud comes in because he's using his degree to claim expertise in the subject. It's like getting a medical degree and then selling snake oil.

[northzax]

69. so what would your litmus test be?

a public affirmation of disbelief in the Bible? or just parts of it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. Belief in a 5,000 year old Earth...

seems like a pretty obvious litmus test for the geology department.

I noticed you dodged the holocaust denial question.

[northzax]

74. oh sorry, I thought you were simply playing the Godwin card

yes, I would have no problem with a history department giving a degree to someone who denies the holocaust, if they completed the requirements of the degree. Just as I would have no problem with a biology department giving a degree to a racist, or an ecomomics department giving a degree to a communist, or a psychiatry department giving a degree to someone who visits psychics, or any of a litany of things. They are all ridiculous beliefs, long since discarded by their fields, but those departments, at public universities, are there to teach fact, not belief.

and I notice that you didn't answer my Einstein question. Care to? was Einstein a real physicist, when for 20 years, he denied Quantum Mechanics?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. Einstein didn't like Quantum Physics, he didn't deny it.

In fact he was a leader in the field.

But if you want to use Albert Einstein, if Einstein believed that gravity made things fall up and that the world was flat, then I'd believe he shouldn't have gotten a degree.

As for "if they completed the requirements of the degree," usually there are requirements involving academic honesty in PhD programs.

Getting a PhD isn't like getting a driver's license.

[northzax]

81. he was a leader in the field?

he spent the last 40 years of his life trying to disprove it. his famous quote "God does not play dice"? is a direct refutation of quantum mechanics. he died trying to disprove Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, because he thought that, while it explained some answers, it was not the complete truth, that there were other answers to the same problem. This is exactly what Dr. Ross thinks, that while, in one paradigm, an answer works, it is not the correct answer. the only way Einstein was a leader in Quantum Mechanics was in trying, vainly, to disprove it, when everyone else had given up that ghost.

If Dr. Ross cannot be a geologist for denying a central 'truth' of geology, while still understanding it, then Einstein cannot be considered a physicist for denying a central truth of physics.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. Yes, Einstein was a leader in the field of quantum physics.

Any student of the subject can tell you as much.

"If Dr. Ross cannot be a geologist for denying a central 'truth' of geology, while still understanding it, then Einstein cannot be considered a physicist for denying a central truth of physics."

This is disingenuous and, perhaps ironically, intellectually dishonest. If Einstein believed that the Earth was flat and matter was made out of phlogiston, then maybe you'd have an analogy.

[northzax]

85. really?

fascinating. plese find me one. Quantum Mechanics was certainly based on a lot of work that Einstein did (which means he was important in the field) but the work he did directly?

please do point to a single peer reviewed article he published in the field? point to a single discovery he made that was in line with the work everyone else was doing in the field at that time, and was accepted.

There is no real difference between someone getting a degree in geology and saying the earth is 10,000 years old and someone getting a degree in physics and saying that quantum mechanics is wrong. Same thing, different fields.

look, it's obvious we are never going to agree, so let's leave it. you work towards statements of belief in science, and I will work on allowing anyone who completes the requirements of a degree, whatever their outside beliefs, to earn that degree.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. Oy.

Perhaps you've heard of the photoelectric effect? He won a Nobel for it? Anyway...

Einstein, A.;
Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt / On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light
Annalen der Physik. Leipzig 17 (1905) 132;

Anyway, you're confusing academic disagreement with full, unadulterated bullshit.

[northzax]

87. ok, how about EPR?

and the fact he spent the last 25 years of his life working on that discredited problem?

and even better. your citation of the photovoltaic paper demonstrates how someone can contribute to something that they don't actually believe in. without that paper, the uncertainty principle and probability functions of quantum mechanics would never have arisen, and yet, Einstein believed these were fallacies.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

88. What about it?

He was working on it, scientifically, it went no where. End of story.

At no point did he claim that the paradox was solved in 1846 by aliens and bigfoot, or any other sort of pseudoscientific nonsense.

[northzax]

89. his reasoning, as publically stated

was that he did not believe that God, in his words, would create a random universe. how is that not pseudo-sceintific?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. Now you're back to the HUP?

Northzax, that was a quip. Not a scientific claim.

[Orsino]

54. The litmus test comes later...

...when this geologist who has proven himself capable of doing real work can only teach at Liberty University, or some similar Christian finishing school. I am not in academia, but I support people's following their hearts in their studies. This man is having it both ways, and is pretty obviously content to doom himself to the third tier of his field.

I'm not too concerned that he is going to be among the best that the creationists can claim for their side. If and when he decides to publish a creationist, young-earth paper, it will be snubbed.

[ima_sinnic]

16. the "young earth" crap was not even hinted at in the dissertation

--the article says he reported dates that were in agreement with scientific thinking--millions of years-- so how could the dissertation not be approved?

[Stuckinthebush]

45. Yep

I mentioned that in my edit.

I think you have to approve a disseration if it is done well and using approved scientific methods. A committee can't disapprove based on his philosophical beliefs.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. It is called double-think

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.”

Two separate, mutually exclusive conclusions, both acknowledged as absolutely true, held together in the mind without cognitive dissonance. Big Brother must be beaming with joy.

[Red Zelda]

7. Meanwhile....

Jesus believes in Permian Terminal Catastrophe

HEAVEN (AP) - Jesus today affirmed that all the remaining trilobites died out in the second phase of the end-Permian extinction event that ushered in the Mesozoic Era 251 million years ago.

[myrna minx]

9. Lol.

:rofl:

[shireen]

8. a friend of mine, a former geologist, once told me

that geologists were the hardest bunch of drinkers he'd ever met. Even he could not keep up with them and he's been known to put away quite a few and more.

So maybe this young man is a real geologist when sober, :hangover:

and a creationist when he's drunk. :beer:

And that's my theory of creationism. :evilgrin:

[mcscajun]

10. Intellectual Dishonesty is what it is.

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.

Translated, in short: "I swallowed my principles, and lied (by commission) to get my credentials."

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.”

Translated, in short: "I lied (by omission) to get my credentials."

The Art of Lying

[unpossibles]

18. right. And now there's another "scientist" who will back up the ID side

but from a dishonest POV, in my opinion.

[keith the dem]

24. and get rich doing it!

[mcscajun]

27. No doubt he'll be hitting the lecture circuit

and appearing on The 700 Club and that sort of thing.

[Zhade]

78. See below. He's a creationist liar.

NT!

[Rex]

11. What an idiot.

Just goes to show you can get a PH.D and still be stupid.

[Jacobin]

12. "separating the different paradigms"

NeuroticSpeak for: "I can't deal with reality using my magic, so I just think of my magic when I'm not working"

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. So he says that the earth can be 4.5 billion years old

and 10,000 years old at the same time.

With god, anything is possible.

:shrug:

There are people who are now going into the sciences for the express purpose of undermining them - just so they can point to their degrees and say "I am an earth scientist, and I believe nothing existed before 10,000 years ago, so therefore, the science of geology is suspect". Deep cover moles for the Lord.

[redqueen]

17. "Deep cover moles for the Lord. "

Indeed... and they know most people don't think too hard about the details, they just read the headlines.

[Beelzebud]

14. Headline should be: Creationist believes in Biblical Creation.

[Az]

20. Creationist tactics

Flood the system with students that are taught to only accept creationist beliefs. Many will fail out of the curriculum due to their beliefs. But some will get through. These people will be credentialed Creationists. They can then be cited when looking for backup on creationist arguments.

This sort of thing was attempted already on the evolution debate. The creationists gathered 200 signatures of "Scientists" that agreed with creationism. They thought this was a rather significant number. So the Scientific community replied by sending out a petition for scientists named Steve who supported evolution to sign on. To date Project Steve (in honor of the then recently departed Stephen Gould) has recieved over 750 signatures of scientists named Steve that support the theory of evolution.

In the end all the creationists have is faith. As an example the scientists that work for the Center for Creation Research have to sign a statement indicating that if they ever come across evidence that refutes the bible or creationism they will dismiss it as false evidence. This is not science. This is nothing but faith dressed up in a lab coat.

[JHB]

21. Now there's "going for job security" for ya'

For decades, one of the skewering points against creationists was that all of the so-called "creationist scientists" were talking outside their field. Almost none of them were from diciplines that were central to the facts being debated. Now, a clever fundy kid recognized this and went after a "frontline" degree: not just geology, but paleontology.

Now, having jumped through the hoops necessary to earn such a PhD legitimatly, he can shop his piece of embossed paper around to the country's fundy universities, and let them bid for the bona fide creationist scientist. As long as the fundies have their own university system, this kid has a job waiting for him (just as long as he doesn't develop any ethical bones or get the blame in some scandal; then he's SOL).

[BootinUp]

22. Why did he choose that field of work?

What is he doing infiltrating science so he can damage it?

[mcscajun]

23. Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner.

He chose that field Precisely to demolish it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. People don't get PhDs to destroy the field from the inside.

People get PhDs because they love the field. Later, they then realize that they can use their PhDs for cash, and they sell out.

[Bandit]

56. In what way did he damage the real science

The only damage I can see is to his credibility and he has as much as Bush* it would appear.

[BootinUp]

91. I was talking about what he intends to do

with this degree he just got ...while unabashedly stating a belief that flies in the face of his chosen field. I didn't say getting the degree caused any damage, I just don't understand why he wants that particular science degree.

[TZ]

25. pHD's don't always equal intelligence

I know from experience that many phD's aren't that bright. Lots of book learning but not as smart as they think. I would bet this guy wrote what he figured would get him a phD. It's unusual but you can have a dissertation that you don't agree with intellectually. He probably has had an agenda for a while now to prove his point. Morally slimy but not wrong. I suspect he may have had really good advisors who gave him a lot of help with his work. We do know that many of these fundies are really pig headed. I suspect this is just an extreme case of wanting to prove his point. After all we are talking about it...:crazy:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. Dan Quayle has a J.D.

'nuff said.

[Hosnon]

49. Haha...a J.D. certainly doesn't guarantee high intelligence. nt.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. P H D ----Preserverance For The Highest Degree

I know lots of 'em. Lots! The "brightness quotient" seems to mirror the overall distribution of the population.

And, by the way. I don't think it's Book Learning, as you mentioned. The fact is they generally know a whole lot about one VERY narrow band of information but are no more overall knowledgeable than the average person, and don't process information in any particularly stellar fashion.

They just stayed in college a long time. (Look who's talking here, huh? At least i was in grad school, all three times, when i was working full time!)

But, my experience is that you are just as likely to find a particularly bright person working at the hardware store than you are to find a particularly bright Ph.D. There are idiots everywhere, and particularly bright folks everywhere.
The Professor

[TZ]

43. very true

I just used to be naive and thought that PhD's meant something.After a bad experience at NIH when I realized that little bitty me with BS only (work experience equivalent of Master's though) was smarter and more insightful and openminded than many of the phD's there. I know now its more about hard work than anything else. One of my favorite phD's did tell me that its a good degree to have if you want to be a desk jockey or paperpusher! Like everything else, pHD's are mostly a reflection of the population. But on the otherhand the two most brilliant people I know are phD's. I just won't let that particular set of letters intimidate me anymore and judge people by who they are not what degrees they have!:)

[ProfessorGAC]

46. A Wise Decision, Sue

GAC

[Forkboy]

30. I can't fathom the neccesary mental gymnastics he must do

to reconcile the two ideas.

[Az]

32. Typically it is called Compartmentalization

This is where the mind can maintain two competing beliefs. Due to stress from conflict the mind will sometimes erect a sort of firewall between various ideas. Otherwise the mind would be torn down over time.

But in this case I doubt such a wall was erected. This case sounds more like someone went into the curriculum deliberately to undermine it. Rather than accept the things they were taught they dismissed the conflicting information and only memorized enough to parrot the answers sought on tests. Then they found a particular weak spot in the current studies that did not directly undermine their beliefs and focused on that. Thus at no time did they have a conflict in their mind. For the simple reason that they are not really a geologist. They are a cuckoo. And I mean that in the biological sense.

[BushOut06]

34. Anyone who believes that should be laughed out of the room

Seriously, there's no point even trying to have a rational discussion with someone so deluded.

[RB TexLa]

35. As a person of faith I wish other people of faith would realize the truth

that the Bible is inerrant in it's whole and in it's intention, which is man's relationship with God. It is not a scientific document, it is not a complete historical time line of man or earth.

[Az]

37. The problem

Fundamentalists that believe the bible is absolutely inerrant look to that position as problematic. If the bible is fallible in mundane areas such as science and history then how is it possible to claim infallibility in other areas? To then its an either or proposition. Either the Bible is perfect in all ways for teaching the truth. Or it isn't.

[smoogatz]

41. Crazy, ain't it?

Fundies congratulate themselves for "believing" the completely contradictory and demonstrably impossible. It's as if being crazy and ig'nant were a sign of their faith.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

40. Exactly.

From another person of faith.

[smoogatz]

39. That's one conflicted mofo.

Seems to be a lot of that going around in fundieland--first Haggard, now this guy. Same thing, inverted--it's as if Haggard had been a gay guy who snuck off every now and then to do some televangelizing.

[Taverner]

47. Then he is not a geologist-That's like having a chemist who believes in alchemy

nt

[TZ]

48. a great point there!!

Probably he is trying to decide what paper to write next: how the Earth is really flat or how the Sun revolves around the Earth:rofl:

[Avalux]

51. He's full of shit - damn this makes me angry.

One cannot equate the hard scientific evidence of paleontology to scripture - his talk of "paradigms" is absurd. I don't care if his work is impeccable; he was disingenuous in his dissertation to get that doctorate so he can promote a religious view and call it science. There's a concerted effort by religious freaks to damage and discount real science - he's one of them and it's downright wrong. I wonder if Jesus would approve of his behavior?

[TZ]

53. which Jesus?

The one in the Bible or the one in this nutjobs brain telling him what to do and say? The scientific method has come under attack again and again in the last four years. I am sure this guy is a hard core Bushie. What do you expect of people who think if you say it TADA! it will magically happen (no civil war in Iraq because we say so!!). All these guys should be on strong antipsyhotic meds for their delusions if you ask me.

[piedmont]

55. Now that's a recipe for mental illness

I cannot imagine having or pretending to have two entirely diametrically opposed world-views at the same time: "what you see in the natural world is real" vs. "what's in this book is real, no matter what evidence from the material world may indicate."

[cgrindley]

59. I'll tell you the sad truth

When you encounter those sorts of students who actively disbelieve in evolution or the age of the earth or some other such vanilla truth, you simply tell them: you can believe whatever you want, but you have to put this answer on the test or you're going to fail. I know plenty of people who take that tack in class.

No one can force you to really believe in something. Although I never smacked my kids, I am not entirely convinced that some other people's children occasionally wouldn't benefit from a good spanking. But if asked about corporal punishment, however, in any sort of company, I'd conceal my true opinion. I'd lie.

[northzax]

61. they are being intellectually dishonest

you should fail them for lying.

at least that's what some would like.

[cgrindley]

84. Every person's conscience is his or her own

No one has the right to tell people what to think, only how to think.

[EndElectoral]

65. Yeah, I'd like to live in the paradigm Bush was never President. What an idiot

[SoCalDem]

70. He sure chose an odd profession with beliefs like that..

Kind of like an allergic, animal-hater becoming a veterinarian :eyes:

[Zhade]

79. Not odd, if you examine him as I have below.

He's a fraud.

[walldude]

72. I really wish

these idiots could explain to me how humans became the top of the food chain while having to contend with T-Rex eating all their relatives. And how exactly did they get 2 T-rex's on the Ark? A leash and collar?

[SemperEadem]

73. then can he be sued if, based upon his theories

a policy/product is developed which then is found to be flawed and false and therefore a danger to human safety?

See, he can believe what he wants to down in his mama's basement; when be brings that crap out and bases policy, standards and product development on it is where I have issue with him. The earth isn't 10,000 years old, the sky isn't purple and the water isn't pink. Either get with reality or stay in your mama's basement.

[Zhade]

75. Here's one of the deceitful liar's works:

http://nagt.org/files/nagt/jge/abstracts/Ross_v53n3p319.pdf

Note that he references such memorable exercises in illogic as "the human eye's complexity proves God exists" and other classic unscientific arguments.

Here he is as a panel of 'experts', including such dimbulbs as Dembski, Behe and Hugh Ross (score one for trostky upthread):

http://www.biola.edu/id/speakers.cfm

I think it's readily apparent this guy is one of the frauds slipping into science fields to attack it from within by using ill-gotten scientific credentials.

[Avalux]

80. Bingo!

These people need to be branded and hounded for what they are - liars who attain lofty degrees in order to undermine science. What a bunch of hooey.

[frogcycle]

82. just goes to prove what i've said all along

"reality" is whatever you want it to be. In his case, he is a little greedy. He wants two.

But how is believing in two diametrically opposed realities any wierder than believing in one wacky one?

All those people who drank Jim Jones's Kool-Aid, or the ones in San Diego who committed suicide so they could be transported to the comet...

Actually, this guy is pretty sane. Hell, he's twice as sane as I am, since I only have one reality.

[xchrom]

92. he obviously obtained this phd for his own purposes that have nothing

to do with real science.

he is out to promote his own propaganda -- and now he has a phd behind his name to lend an authenticity that he doesn't even believe in.

[Zhade]

93. Yep - see my post above.

He's a fraud!

[Stu DeBeouf]

94. He can "believe"...

in the "Power of rock'n'roll", and moon's made of green cheese, but, I require proof.

[pinniped]

95. This creepo's next mission will be to tell tourists how the Grand Canyon....

is a few thousand years old.