…and this is a 
Trained parrot awarded Ph.D.
Category: Creationism
Posted on: February 12, 2007 12:23 AM, by PZ Myers
This is a sad story of compartmentalization carried to an extreme: a Ph.D. student in the geosciences who is also young earth creationist. This is a tricky subject: religion is not a litmus test for awarding a degree, but supposedly depth and breadth of knowledge is. I say that you cannot legitimately earn an advanced degree in geology and at the same time hold a belief contrary to all the evidence, and that the only way you can accomplish it is by basically lying to yourself and your committee throughout the process—and look at this…the student agrees.
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.
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."
In other words, he was going through the motions. 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.
I have a hard time imagining spending 4+ years working hard at something I believed was a complete lie, but this guy did it, and thinks he accomplished something. His motive clearly was not a love of science, but to acquire credentials under false pretenses that he could then use to endorse his ideology. What a waste of his time; I wouldn't hire such a phony, and I don't know anyone who would. Where could he end up working? But of course…
Today he teaches earth science at Liberty University, the conservative Christian institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell where, Dr. Ross said, he uses a conventional scientific text.
"We also discuss the intersection of those sorts of ideas with Christianity," he said. "I don't require my students to say or write their assent to one idea or another any more than I was required."
If his training was a lie, I guess he doesn't have any scruples about lying a little more: I've seen the job ads from Liberty University, and a "young earth philosophy" is a prerequisite for teaching there. He teaches something called CRST 290, which is in a "religious studies" category, taught as part of their required instruction in "creation studies".
CRST 290: History of Life
An interdisciplinary study of the origin and history of life in the universe. Faculty of the Center for Creation Studies will draw from science, religion, history, and philosophy in presenting the evidence and arguments for creation and evolution.
I think the University of Rhode Island might want to review their doctoral programs a bit. It looks like someone can slip through with only the most superficial knowledge of their field, and can admit to faking it throughout their entire training. This kind of slack in the standards diminishes the luster of degrees from RI.
It also says something even worse of Liberty University. They'll hire any old hack to teach their courses.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
"a sad story of compartmentalization."
yup, but that's the real pattern. Not unique, by any means. Moreover, it's basically the direction I thought you would take in your contribution on "evolution sunday".
I do wonder where the psychologists are in all this. It seems there should be a scienceblog where a psychologist analyzes the common features of cognitive dissonance and freudian-style defense mechanisms that are so prevalent amongst creationists.
all this story does is bring the issue out more clearly.
As long as this has been going on, I also think there MUST be someone who has spent time collating the obvious patterns into a book.
something I expect would be titled: "Revisiting Freud: Creationism and the American Mindset."
or something like that.
anybody run across one yet?
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2007 12:34 AM
PZ, stop insulting trained parrots.
Posted by: Shelley | February 12, 2007 12:36 AM
My pet parrot just complained to me that the headline for this blog post was very misleading. He is insulted.
Posted by: Jenn | February 12, 2007 12:44 AM
Sad to say, the Ph.D. is often a test of endurance as well as/instead of ability...this shocks me less than it ought to, I think.
Posted by: Melanie S. | February 12, 2007 12:46 AM
Hmm. After seeing the title, I immediately thought you were talking about Wells again.
I actually ran into someone like this today, on a facebook message board. He was (or claimed to be, anyway) a PhD student in biology... and tried to argue that objective science favors the genesis account.
In the course of a rather short discussion, he managed to completely bastardize the idea of punctuated equilibrium (nearly equating it with special creation). Also argued that the bible should be regarded as true because it correctly placed fish as emerging before land animals (somehow overlooking that the birds are said to come with them) and claimed that speciation hasn't occured since the emergence of man.
I *really* hope he was simply lying to me about being a bio student... and if he really is, it'll be a sad day for education if he gets his degree.
Posted by: Sunbeam | February 12, 2007 12:47 AM
I think the University of Rhode Island might want to review their doctoral programs a bit. It looks like someone can slip through with only the most superficial knowledge of their field, and can admit to faking it throughout their entire training. This kind of slack in the standards diminishes the luster of degrees from RI.
Jonathan Wells
haven't we already had this discussion?
compartmentalization is both a sad and a miraculous thing, and could indeed allow someone like this guy, or Miller, or Collins, to teach or do research without letting whatever contrary beliefs they hold affect their work.
no, it ain't healthy in my opinion, and often leads to severe cases of cognitive dissonance (think John Davison or Behe), but it can be done.
According to the the full article, those considering this fellow's admission could not fault his qualifications.
What right does a University as a governing body have to eliminate someone from a graduate program if they showed talent for the field, had a legit thesis project, and had sufficient qualifications coming in?
surely you can see the problems inherent in rejecting someone who could arguably (in court) say it was done out of religious prejudice?
I think any university might want to limit their liability from that perspective.
Truly I think it a responsibility of the those faculty considering the potential student, rather than that of the university at large, to make a decision on accepting to be an advisor for any particular graduate student.
In this case, when one reads the full article, one does get the impression the decision was not taken lightly; it was more like an "experiment" to see what would happen.
I doubt seriously they would accept another graduate student with a similar background, and within a thesis committee, any one of a hundred reasons can be given that would not hold them liable.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2007 12:51 AM
I actually ran into someone like this today, on a facebook message board. He was (or claimed to be, anyway) a PhD student in biology... and tried to argue that objective science favors the genesis account.
that sounds an awful lot like a troll we had hanging around the ATBC area on PT for a while.
he didn't use the last name "Martin" by any chance?
if so, that guy is a total fraud. He has no advanced degree of any kind (we actually took the time to look it up).
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2007 12:54 AM
Isn't this the very definition of academic and intellectual dishonesty? If he just did the phd, that's one thing. Certainly, it's hard to expect all phd students to be 100% sure of their research... but to then go and teach things that directly contradict your own work? And not mention to your students that you've previously done research that earned you a phd that directly contradicted what you're saying? (I'm obviously making two assumptions, first that what he's teaching at Liberty directly contradicts the science espoused in his dissertation, and also that he doesn't tell his students at Liberty that he did phd level work contradicting what he is teaching them... I think both assumptions are probably true, but if not, then this post is unfair to the guy). It seems to me like that would be grounds for Rhode Island University to rescind their award of a phd (though I don't know whether something like that is possible, or if it ever actually happens). Also, it seems like this possible dishonesty should have been addressed in the article (though maybe it was too obvious).
Posted by: Alan | February 12, 2007 1:06 AM
"I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates."
Oh, right. When you write "millions of years" in your doctoral dissertation, it does not imply that you believe it. Sorry, buddy. It sure as hell does. Dr. Ross just doesn't want to admit he lied in his dissertation. I wonder why not. After all, I hear it's okay as long as you're lying for Jesus.
Posted by: Zeno | February 12, 2007 1:12 AM
It seems to me like that would be grounds for Rhode Island University to rescind their award of a phd (though I don't know whether something like that is possible, or if it ever actually happens). Also, it seems like this possible dishonesty should have been addressed in the article (though maybe it was too obvious).
No.
Say you buy a book at a bookstore and then proceed to rip the pages out and use them to wipe your ass.
should the bookstore revoke your reading privileges because you chose to use the book in an unintended fashion?
Universities simply CANNOT be held responsible for what someone does with their education, they can only be held resonsible for the quality of the education itself.
that person paid for a product, pure and simple, and I can't think of any legitimate reason any business, including a university, should be responsible for how that product is used. However, as I said above, decisions to admit graduate students are not only made at the university level, and cases like this should give faculty committees pause for consideration.
now let's talk about gun control and the responsibility of gun manufacturers...
:p
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2007 1:17 AM
I'm sure everyone will be shocked, yes shocked, to discover that Marcus Ross was a Discovery Institute fellow while in grad school.
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | February 12, 2007 1:20 AM
he didn't use the last name "Martin" by any chance?
No. He's registered as "Ukpong Eyo". Yeah, I have no idea...
But if he did lie about one thing, why not another?
Posted by: Sunbeam | February 12, 2007 1:24 AM
A degree is not a product.
Posted by: zwa | February 12, 2007 1:26 AM
that person paid for a product, pure and simple, and I can't think of any legitimate reason any business, including a university, should be responsible for how that product is used
I'm mostly ignorant about academic protocol, but I don't think most universitites would characterize the degrees they award as a "product". I think they tend to regard them as a status. Again, I don't know whether it's really possible, or whether it happens, but a university that finds gross misconduct in the way that one of its phd graduates is using that phd (and thereby representing the university's reputation), should have some moral grounds, if not legal, or practical grounds for wishing to remove that individual's "status" as having been awarded a phd from that university.
Posted by: Alan | February 12, 2007 1:32 AM
It also says something even worse of Liberty University. They'll hire any old hack to teach their courses.
Not any old hack. Really, how many people with advanced science degrees do you know--even desperate people with unimmpressive degrees--would whore themselves out to a place like Liberty?
It's not a coincidence that most of the science PhDs who espouse any form of creationism get their palms greased for it, either in lecture or consulting fees, honoraria, or a salary, like this Ross.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | February 12, 2007 1:38 AM
Alan:
but I don't think most universitites would characterize the degrees they award as a "product". I think they tend to regard them as a status.
no, they do in fact regard it like a product. They are, after all, a business.
...should have some moral grounds, if not legal, or practical grounds for wishing to remove that individual's "status" as having been awarded a phd from that university.
then the university admits to liability for granting the degree in the first place.
IOW, it makes them look bad.
Would you attend a 4 year plus graduate program where at the end, you had a legitimate chance of having your degree removed because of a later decision of the university??
not hardly.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 12, 2007 1:38 AM
"I was working within a particular paradigm of earth history. I accepted that philosophy of science for the purpose of working with the people."
Lies in the name of methodological naturalism. I'll stick with the ontological variety.
Posted by: AustinAtheist | February 12, 2007 1:53 AM
That is fairly bizarre, but is it really a requirement that you believe what you say in order that what you say be useful? Indeed, the scientist is supposed to doubt everything. I guess the real problem is that he ACTUALLY believes something directly contrary. It's an outright lie to say that "I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates" when that is WHAT YOU WROTE. Usually, when you put your name to a statement, it means that you are ENDORSING it, unless you're an actor merely repeating lines. Trained parrot is a good description.
Posted by: thaumaturge | February 12, 2007 2:05 AM
People can believe what they want. It is only when they make claim that the evidence backs their position that they may step into dishonesty. If he makes such a claim, as he has done somewhat, then he must be open to the debates that science requires. If he does not do this, then, no matter how many degrees he has, he is not a scientist, but just a priest with a skin on his wall..
Posted by: Lago | February 12, 2007 2:20 AM
It all sounds a little comic book villainish to me.
Once the board at ICR completes their secret plan to infiltrate children as moles into secular universities, they will breed a super-race of christian/scientist hybrids and rule the world! Or something.
Posted by: melior | February 12, 2007 2:26 AM
I was a teaching assistant on a course that included human evolution. An undergraduate who was Russian Orthodox told me that he did not accept the idea that we evolved from nonhuman primates. I told him that he could personally believe whatever he wanted, but he had to learn and understand the material that we taught him, and that understanding had to be reflected in how he completed his assignments and exams.
But an undergraduate is a different situation than a doctoral student.
Posted by: Colugo | February 12, 2007 2:29 AM
One day a creationist paper will pass peer review. Not because it is in any way correct but because the process isn't perfect. There are tons of peer reviewed papers on faith healing, ESP and other nonsense. There are tons of bad legitimate papers being published.
The peer review process and the scientific method in general works statistically - a majority of the people involved try for the most time to honsetly judge would-be contributions to science based on a sound methodology. It is however far from an absolutely infallible process in every case.
The point being, if you are upset over idiots getting PhDs, you should brace for creationists getting their so desired publication in a peer-reviewed journal. It is remarkable that it hasn't happened already.
Posted by: Denoir | February 12, 2007 2:33 AM
Nick - Nice catch! Does anybody know how many YEC's are actually part of ID inner circles? Paul Nelson is, right? Anybody else?
Posted by: Dave Carlson | February 12, 2007 2:40 AM
I have a bit of a problem with this question.
PhDs are generally awarded for a combination of things. Usually these consist of courses taken at the college, the thesis itself (generally including one or more peer reviewed published papers) and finally the defence of the thesis in front of an expert or panel of experts.
Obviously it is possible for a trained parrot to get through such a situation. Most of us in research or who have been through higher education can recall many 'trained parrots' - although usually it was the kind that could recite data without a proper understanding of its meaning rather than this case where the individual probably could understand the meaning but really believed something else.
Based on this I fail to see how they could have failed him so long as he stuck to the evidence based stuff till his degree was awarded.
Its probably not exactly intellectually honest but at the same time this particular instance is not going to cause the edifice of empirical science to collapse. He has essentially to all intents and purposes now left science anyway (and does anyone seriously suspect that Liberty University would have picked a reality based scientist for the job if Ross hadnt been available ? More than likely they would have got someone with Kent Hovind style credentials).
Posted by: MartinC | February 12, 2007 2:42 AM
Hmm. The issue of revocation is definitely a sticky one. One one hand, its probably not possible to revoke it. On the other hand, you could argue that a degree is a bit like becoming an engineer. You **cannot** legitimately qualify as an engineer in some states without "proving" that you meet certain basic criteria, which includes *how* you use the knowledge you got, not just that you have it, and your status as one *can* be revoked if you later prove to be a complete incompetent or intentionally disregard what you proved you knew, in favor of doing things in a way that wasn't acceptable by the standards of those giving the certification. There was a big dust up some place not to long ago over this, with the engineers screaming about the unfairness of software developers using the term "engineer", when nearly all of them calling themselves that had no certification they needed to pass to "prove" that they where qualified to use the term as a title, nor could it be revoked if they failed to match a set standard.
So, it really comes down to if a college is granting you a gold star saying, "Little Jimmy did real well in this class.", or a *certification*, which implies a specific set of standards, not only in what is known, but *how* that certification is used in the real world. Personally, I would very much prefer that it be treated as a certification, not a fracking sticker given out because the student did the equivalent of proving that he wouldn't pee on the carpet "while in" school and being watched, even though he might do so at home.
Posted by: Kagehi | February 12, 2007 2:43 AM
Kagehi, I dont think they can revoke it either, although perhaps they might be a little more careful in future as to how they recruit PhD students so as to attract those that want to pursue science and research after they have finished the degree. The whole episode just reflects badly on their initial selection process (particularly if Ross was an outspoken creationism advocate even as a graduate student). I would have suggested he completed his education somewhere more suitable, like Patriot University.
Posted by: MartinC | February 12, 2007 2:56 AM
I don't think they'll revoke his degree at this point. Universities rarely revoke degrees, and only under extreme circumstances: if the student turns out to have faked his data or plagiarized large parts of the dissertation.
Posted by: John Farley | February 12, 2007 3:13 AM
But he HAS faked his data - all of it.
Every last bit of it.
He is standing up in public and saying my PhD was obtained under false pretences.
The University should rescind, as soon as they can get a convocation together.
Posted by: G. Tingey | February 12, 2007 3:48 AM
How did he fake his data?
Posted by: Lago | February 12, 2007 4:04 AM
The article quotes his dissertation adviser as saying his scientific work is "impeccable" and that the science he did was "completely defensible." And I'm assuming you haven't read his dissertation (correct me if I'm wrong), so I find it rather odd that you would call his knowledge of the field "superficial." Nobody on his committee seemed to suggest that his knowledge of his field is superficial, so I'm curious why you would say that.
Posted by: Macht | February 12, 2007 4:09 AM
Making a statement you don't believe to be true is a lie. Is this really so hard to grasp?
If you've got a more charitable explanation for his maintaining a set of beliefs completely at odds with every significant element of the collective knowledge of the field in which he supposedly qualifies for an advanced degree, we're waiting to hear it.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 12, 2007 4:31 AM
This is a pretty farout idea, but the article states that Dr Ross is "a creationist raised in an evangelical household", so is it possible that Dr Ross is in fact not a YEC, but is just afraid to "come out of the closet"?
Posted by: Miguel Garcia-Blanco | February 12, 2007 4:46 AM
Not really. They'll evidently (i.e. on their own claims) only hire hacks (dishonest and scientifically mentally incompetent people) but those can be young hacks not merely old hacks. Plus you already knew that of Liberty University anyway. It's not like this is news in that respect.
Posted by: SEF | February 12, 2007 4:47 AM
I suppose I am curious about how much of his PhD he believed. Did he think the conclusions were justified from the data and that the references he cited in support of it were valid? Or did he think that he was leaving out important contradictory and valid references because he didn't think they were acceptable?
Posted by: G. Shelley | February 12, 2007 5:55 AM
Since this is the obvious and inevitable outcome of the sort of instrumentalism science-religion compatibilists support, I'm not surprised to see people defend it. This guy is just applying "methodological naturalism" without taking the "unjustified step" of a "naturalistic metaphysics." This is exactly the sort of thing many religion-friendly sciencebloggers have been promoting. I hope seeing it embodied in such a ridiculous and inane manner is revealing.
Posted by: poke | February 12, 2007 6:26 AM
Talking of dumb animals with unmerited accreditation, That Awful Poo Lady, "Dr" Gillian McKeith, has been banned from using her fake PhD when hawking her wares in the UK.
Read all about it at Bad Science: "Ms Gillian McKeith - Banned From Calling Herself A Doctor!".
Posted by: Ithika | February 12, 2007 7:14 AM
I think that this kind of compartmentalization is more common than people think. Even today, a lot of scientists have non-naturalist world views, though I'm sure that scientists as a group are more naturalistic than any other demographic (except for atheists and the like).
It would be easy to make a list of great scientists who were religious believers. There were also scientists who slyly claimed to be doing what Dr. Ross did, for the opposite reason -- "just developing a hypothesis, withtout assering its truth or falsehood". Copernicus, I believe, pretended to be doing this.
Faraday was an interesting case. He belonged to a sect called the Sandemanians, for whom compatabilism was apparently a primary doctrine, and who thus honored science while separating it from revealed religion.
Faraday
Posted by: John Emerson | February 12, 2007 7:17 AM
No, the instrumentalism that is often attributed to Copernicus is the result of Osiander adding about a preface to Copernicus' On the Revolutions.
Posted by: Macht | February 12, 2007 8:04 AM
John Emerson:
I think that this kind of compartmentalization is more common than people think.
I agree.
Another example of compartmentalization: I know several PhDs in Biology who believe in, and use homeopathic medicine. While I know that religion and "alternative medicine" are not exactly the same thing, lack of respect for evidence is obviously a common trait. How can one be a scientist and at the same time accept the weird ideas behind homeopathy?
Posted by: amph | February 12, 2007 8:15 AM
The issue here is whether Dr. Ross obtained his PhD degree under false pretenses, like Wells did. If he did, that constitutes fraud and fraud is grounds for revoking his degree.
Posted by: SLC | February 12, 2007 8:42 AM
How shall these programs determine what candidates actually believe, then? There's a difference between knowing what results science has found, and accepting them. If a person can demonstrate mastery of the scientific method and a deep knowledge of scientific results, and has satisfied the other requirements for a Ph.D., I see no reason why the university has the right to refuse to grant the degree.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 12, 2007 8:43 AM
Re: the whole 'PhD as a product' thing. I know that things are done slightly differently over in the US, but here in the UK I'm fairly sure that the University would take the position that the 'customer' is not the student, but the research council or funding company who actually pays for the research (including the PhD students' stipend).
In that sense, so long as the research passes muster (makes verifiable and well-supported conclusions, is not falsified or plagiarised), the University doesn't really have much of a case for revoking this guys' degree, even if they wanted to. It's just very depressing that someone would waste half a decade of their life researching something they believe fundamentally to be false.
Posted by: gengar | February 12, 2007 8:46 AM
"...Osiander adding about a preface..." == "...Osiander adding a preface..."
Posted by: Macht | February 12, 2007 8:47 AM
I believe he's just another victim of the polarizing tendency prevalent in today's society. Why are intellectuals whining like children, just because a Ph.D happens to have religious views? Compartmentalization of this sort isn't necessarily unhealthy...on the contrary I believe it has its benefits. As for abusing his knowledge...whatever he does with it is his concern. If he writes a paper supporting creationist worldviews and he makes poor arguments, then others will refute them. If he makes good arguments, then maybe Austrolopithecines were God's rough drafts. Truth alone triumphs.
As scientists, we should be adopting agnostic worldviews. We aren't out to prove God doesn't exist. In doing so, we eschew objectivism only to create yet another set of dogmatic beliefs, giving creationists more ammunition (science is just another religion, etc. etc.)
Besides, any student who attends a conservative religious school already expects a conservative religious slant on the knowledge presented. Finally, an intellectual body adopting a "devil's advocate" (God's advocate?) position may yield interesting avenues of research.
Posted by: Neil | February 12, 2007 8:49 AM
As a former lawyer, I frequently see Ross-types, people who instead of learning the law to advance society through good rules, use it to advance their personal agendas. It's sad to see in science, but common in jurisprudence.
Second, I often wonder why creationist types also ignore the science that exists in theology. For well over a century, theologians have critically examined the origins of the Bible, using document and linguistic analysis, and for later stories, comparing other histories. The bottom line -- most intelligent theologians see the Bible as a metaphor. Even the New Testament can be seen that way. Some, such as Elaine Pagels, understand why religious infighting shaped the gospels.
So why don't the creationists understand that their basic text is just poetry and not fact? Personally, I think it's a form of mental illness brought about in part by rigid teaching at an early age -- Dawkins' "child abuse."
Posted by: Peter M | February 12, 2007 8:56 AM
What do you mean, 'we'? You're not a scientist.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 12, 2007 9:16 AM
I'm going to agree that there is nothing wrong with what the school has done. The problem is not that this fellow is skeptical of some parts of science, nor even that he would work through those areas. Many advances have come from someone working in a theory that they came to find faulty. Science cannot work as a credal system, nor should graduate students or faculty be asked for statements of belief.
The guy is a wacko, of course. But it's important to understand why. It's not his skepticism of any part of science, but his religious faith that makes him irrational. He chooses to believe a creation story despite the fact that he cannot write a Ph.D. dissertation on it, the way he does on geology, and because of that story, he rejects other notions of geology, without any criticism that can be incorporated into legitimate research. It is, as others have said, complete compartmentalization. And before that, faith.
Posted by: Russell | February 12, 2007 9:24 AM
I'd like to comment on the "degree as product" debate. Wasn't this essentially the central argument behind the "seperate but equal" concept in the '50's? The Supreme Court ruled that a university is not just the books and facilities and the quality of its professors, but also the alumni and prestige that they reflect upon their universities. Based on this, they determined that seperate is inherently unequal and invalidated the concept of s.b.e.
Thus, it would appear to me that universities do indeed have an interest in what the graduate does with their degree. The "product" of the university is the graduate, not the degree.
Posted by: Steve | February 12, 2007 9:31 AM
Since science and theories are meritocracies, I don't see an inherent need for PhD's to be revoked outside of faking the PhD work.
But it could be considered, especially is circumstances change. Research is based on peer review, but also money and PR. Getting the reputation soiled may not be selective enough in todays society
Probably not, measured against theory. That he thinks it is fake is another matter.
Science is a neutral tool. It is compatible with or supportive for a number of -isms, humanism, agnosticism, atheism, and so on.
It is difficult to claim any is better. But if anything, atheism is increasingly supported by induction over facts and theories, while agnosticism is diminished by it. And as poke noted, instrumentalism, and I would claim agnosticism, may open up for inane positions which is another fact to consider.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | February 12, 2007 9:33 AM
No, the "product" of the university was (among other things) the prestige that could be associated with their degrees. The benefit from said prestige ultimately being the students', not their own.
It will cost the university far more prestige, and thus hurt their product, if it becomes known that they are willing to revoke earned degrees simply because they don't like what people have gone on to do with their lives after attending their instutitions.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 12, 2007 9:33 AM
So are all the college science teachers here ready for the onslaught of fundie kids who come into your departments and follow this fellow's brave example?
Is this the beginning of a trend?
Posted by: George | February 12, 2007 10:05 AM
This would be FAR from the first time such individuals have earned such degrees from prestigious universities. I am not terribly concerned per se. If he wants to blow his money earning a doctorate in something he believes is wrong, that's his deal.
My only question is, did he pay for his education, or did federal grants and/or scholarships get him through? If he earned scholarships or grants for study of the field, then I'd start asking questions of those who reviewed his application for said money.
But sometimes it's easy to sweet-talk money-granting bodies into handing out free money to those that don't deserve it. Back in college, I just missed getting half my tuition paid for to an older, less motivated, class-dodging hack. Them's the breaks...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 12, 2007 10:12 AM
Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
Posted by: Sean Foley | February 12, 2007 10:14 AM
Fascinating - it's almost like a real life "Chinese room" experiment. The Ph.D. candidate alone doesn't understand geology, but the Ph.D. candidate running a "conform to my dissertation committee's beliefs" program understands geology well enough to pass a Turing Test limited to that field.
It's a shame he metaphorically deleted the program afterwards. Aside from the loss to his future students, consider the potential loss to artificial intelligence researchers.
Posted by: roystgnr | February 12, 2007 10:17 AM
I'm not an academic. I don't understand the idea that it is wrong for a student to get a degree in a discipline the substance of which he disagrees with. An atheist, presumbably, could get a degree in theology. Even if the student's beliefs were contrary to the evidence of his discipline, I don't understand why that means that his obtaining a degree is illegitimate or that it would require lying to yourself and others during the process or that it means that the training is a lie or involved obtaining credentials under false pretenses.
Posted by: Jeff Chamberlain | February 12, 2007 10:19 AM
Is this the beginning of a trend?
My question as well.
this particular instance is not going to cause the edifice of empirical science to collapse. He has essentially to all intents and purposes now left science anyway
I'm not worried about the edifice of empirical science collapsing, just collapsing here in the United States. The issue of these "sleeper cells" Ph.D.-grabbers is only one facet of the larger issue: Why does this country even tolerate crap "universities" staffed by crap "professors" teaching crap? This is beginning to look like [Godwin Law violation alert] the search for the "true Aryans" and race "biology" and all that other crap pursued by a certain crap culture that tried to erect a new, parallel, crap edifice. Those guys had "degrees" too.
Posted by: Kristine | February 12, 2007 10:20 AM
Doesn't the Bible say something or other about not lying?
Posted by: Carlie | February 12, 2007 10:21 AM
Was Kurt Wise a committed YEC while he was doing his Ph.D. under Gould? Dawkins' essay on Wise doesn't make the time-line clear -- ie. whether Wise's big Moment Of Decision (in which he chose wrong) came before, during, or after.
But he HAS faked his data - all of it.
There's an irony there: Ross believes all his data is, at some level "fake" -- but the scientific world accepts that data (and his interpretation of it) as legitimate.
Most of us have the ability to think hypothetically -- to accept for the sake of argument some proposition we think false, and see where it leads logically. (In fact -- more irony! -- we frequently run across fundamentalists who have trouble thinking outside their box, eg. understanding why we atheists aren't worried about going to hell). But most of us don't engage in that sort of mind-game for very long. I really have to wonder how you can work that hard for that long on something you personally believe to be a fantasy, a giant mistake (I know I couldn't do it -- I'd have to love the subject, and that requires believing I'm studying something real). ISTM that if, in reality, all those mososaurs lived only a few millenia ago, and were buried in Ye Fludde, there shouldn't be enough of a pattern in the data to talk meaningfully about species distribution across mega-years.
Posted by: Steve Watson | February 12, 2007 10:23 AM
I'm afraid I would have to agree that there is no legitimate reason to revoke his degree. He earned it under the terms of his advising committee; it's done. You don't get to retroactively change the criteria for passing.
However, it is a problem for the University of Rhode Island, and I hope they do some rigorous review of their procedures. It isn't about screening out religious people; I think Ken Miller and Francis Collins, to name the usual suspects, are credits to their institutions (at least in science) and we certainly don't want to get to the point where we're denying degrees because someone is a Lutheran. This is a case where a student did not accept basic, fundamental concepts of his discipline, though; he should have been axed from the program during his prelims when he was grilled on, for instance, dating methods.
My question would be whether the program did do an adequate review of Ph.D. candidates knowledge (no foul to URI), or did this student simply parrot back what he was expected to say (in which case, he's a poor scholar)?
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 12, 2007 10:25 AM
I just had a heated discussion with a historian of science in my department about this (we were both heated in the same direction, but also both playing devil's advocate). What we came down to was that it's ok to go to school to learn about something you don't believe in, it's ok to reject certain hypotheses in your field, but there are a couple of lines he crossed: One, he outright lied and admitted to it, and two, he doesn't accept the basic tenet of the scientific method that you have to be willing to adapt your explanations based on new evidence. We decided that in good conscience, he should have declined to get the degree at the end of the program if he didn't believe in it, and that the school should have declined to give him the degree. Not because he's a YEC, but because he refuses to accept the very method of obtaining knowledge that the Ph.D. is all about.
Posted by: Carlie | February 12, 2007 10:29 AM
Was Kurt Wise a committed YEC while he was doing his Ph.D. under Gould?
Yeah, he was. I can't find the link, but he didn't divulge his YEC beliefs to Gould until after he had been admitted to Harvard's program. Which raises a whole other question, namely whether or not these guys were applying to graduate school under false pretenses. Ross uses the example of a socialist economist applying to a department with a supply-side orientation, but presumably that student's application statement would have indicated that he or she didn't necessarily subscribe to the school of thought advanced by the department's faculty. Wise, so far as I know, did not.
Posted by: Sean Foley | February 12, 2007 10:31 AM
Interestingly enough, my wife did the same thing, when she attended Catholic school. She aced the classes that were required for religion, just by telling them what they wanted to hear. At no point did they even ask if she believed what she was saying or writing. She considers herself a xian, but her views seem more naturalistic (i.e. The Bible is a book of parables, not to be taken literally). Which is fortunate, because I consider it a fairytale.
Posted by: Berlzebub | February 12, 2007 10:37 AM
It's worth mentioning that Ph.D.'s have been revoked under circumstances where the researcher committed fraud in his career beyond graduate school. The scandal involving Jan Hendrik Schön falsifying data at Bell Labs resulted in the University of Konstanz revoking his degree. See the link at
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8224/8224physicist.html
It's probably not valid for RI to revoke a degree which they awarded apparently with full knowledge of the student's views. However, if that student demonstrates issues with dishonesty and fraud (not terribly unlikely, given the track record), there is precendent for revoking.
Posted by: gg | February 12, 2007 10:55 AM
PZ,
This Ross character is involved with Paul Nelson and his ideas:
Nelson, P.A. and Ross, M.R. (2003) Understanding the Cambrian explosion by estimating ontogenetic depth. Developmental Biology, 259, 459-460.
Nelson, P.A. and Ross, M.R. (2004) Problems with characterizing the protostome-deuterostome ancestor. Developmental Biology, 271, 601-601.
Both are meeting abstracts and these are the only "publications" Ross has (though he might get some from his PhD).
As an aside, on ontogenetic depth and the Cambrian explosion, I am somewhat confused. As YECs, Nelson and Ross must view the CE as the result of flood hydraulics and not biological diversity (be it God or evolution). Why are they then seeking to investigate it in this way?
Posted by: SteveF | February 12, 2007 11:01 AM
PZ writes:
I have to disagree. Consider a physics student doing research in relativity who believes there is something fundamentally wrong with general relativity. Understanding is required. Belief is not. And requiring belief would turn academic departments into that which we are fighting: credal churches or seminaries.
Posted by: Russell | February 12, 2007 11:12 AM
I'm mad at the Times. "He would not say whether he shared the view of some young earth creationists that flaws in paleontological dating techniques erroneously suggest that the fossils are far older than they really are."--this, way down in the story, is all they had to say about how he reconciled the two points of view or criticized the science. Ross upholds the authority of the Bible, but the Times can't get a word out of him about what's wrong with the science. How hard did they try?
Posted by: gmanedit | February 12, 2007 11:20 AM
It's a slippery slope to talk of revoking PhDs for apparently correct dissertations just because the author doesn't believe what's in it. I have no time for this guy but plenty of parrots graduate based on writing stuff they don't understand. The PhD itself is irrelevant - the real issue is what is done with it - in this case it was used to get a job at Liberty. That says it all - it's a one way ticket to academic oblivion.
It seems pretty clear that this individual did the PhD so that he could use his credentials to advance YEC/ID. After all, many YEC-ers who want to go into science go into physics or chemistry which are essentially "neutral." The level of intellecutual dishonesty needed by this guy is breathtaking and an interesting case study in self-delusion.
But I'm sure that the publicity they have received on front page of the NYT is unwelcome, too - no matter what they say in public, it looks really bad and will be a cause for serious squirming even among some evangelicla groups.
Posted by: df | February 12, 2007 11:28 AM
Not having read his thesis, or seen anything more than 'soundbites' from his thesis advisor and examining committee, I can't stand up and say "revoke!" or "should not have been awarded!".
Presumably, his thesis, as written, was defensible. Given that the thesis defence is exactly that, a defence of the submitted thesis, his success at that endeavor should be all that is required for graduation and getting the award.
What he does with his shiny-new PhD after graduation is up to him, and there's very little he could do post-graduation that RI could use to justify revocation. The only behaviour of his that would matter would be inappropriate acts conducted while he was conducting his research or during the admission process (i.e. lying).
The irony pointed out by Steve Watson (#56), above, is very interesting to me - he was lying in his thesis, in that he said things he believed to be false (however many weasel words he may use to try to cover that lie). BUT, ironically, what he said in his thesis was (apparently) scientifically sound and in line with current theory. So he was lying to himself.
I don't think the university can or should revoke his degree at this point. If it comes to light that he plagiarised, or faked his data, or otherwise commited fraud, that's a different story. But that story hasn't been told, yet (if it will; he might have actually done good science).
Posted by: TheBrummell | February 12, 2007 11:29 AM
Ichthyic:
While it's a rare practice, universities can and do revoke degrees as the University of Virginia did a few years ago when cheating was discovered after graduation. Revocations have also occurred in a few instances of scientists falsifying data. Whether this particular case deserves revocation depends on details we don't have.
Posted by: Bertrand | February 12, 2007 11:34 AM
I hope Alan Sokal and Meera Nanda are watching. Take a look at the platitude which this Ross fellow used to justify his actions: "I was working within a particular paradigm of earth history." One can appreciate why Nature's editorial policy bans the word paradigm: all too often, it is the verbal equivalent of a prion.
We owe the infectious factor to Thomas Kuhn, of course, and his Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It has been said that there are in fact two Kuhns fighting for domination within the pages of that volume, the moderate Kuhn and his demented evil twin brother (who was, perhaps, bitten by a radioactive French literary critic when he was a child). The moderate Kuhn takes the position that in science, one world view replaces another — Einstein overtaking Newton, for example — and that we typically overestimate the degree to which the actual scientific evidence determines this change. His twin, Mutant Evil Kuhn, says that these "paradigms" are incommensurable: that evidence can never change a Newtonian into a follower of Special Relativity.
"Say wha?"
Well, that's why he's Mutant Evil Kuhn, and why he gets to be a revered patriarch of the Fellowship of Social Constructivists.
Now, a tolerant and scholarly mind can find some good in "postmodernism" (to steal a riff from Pliny the Elder, it's hard to find a book which is so thoroughly bad nothing good can come of it). We can find some modest worth by elaborating and refining the axiom, "Whatever is said, is said by someone." However, modesty is not a virtue in postmodern circles, and when found it is often corrected by injections of the K-Factor Mutagen.
We stereotypically associate an infection by postmodern memes with residency in the political Left. As Meera Nanda has ably documented, this is an illusion brought about, ironically, by our Eurocentric bias. Fans of Vedic creationism and Vedic astrology invoke Lacan and Feyerabend to justify the subduction of modern science into Hindu mythology. And now, we see that all the talk of epistemic relativism and incommensurable paradigms which earned philosophy degrees for so many latte-sipping, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving intellectuals provides a pat mantra for the creationists. It has no more intellectual depth than the answer one gets upon asking a teenager, newly saved and reborn in Christ, how they reconcile God's omniscience with free will or how they resolve the problem of evil. It is a soma of words, whose function is to lubricate the mind and keep it slipping freely past contradictions of fact and crises of conscience.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 12, 2007 11:45 AM
The YEC bio grad student mentioned above is the humiliation of our program - slipped in under the radar by not mentioning his views during the app process. Currently he supplies us with some great FAC jokes, can't find an advisor who wants him, and is not expected to make it through the first round of cuts. Be wary O admissions committee members.
Posted by: vetarabbit | February 12, 2007 11:46 AM
In other news, the ScienceBlogs decency filter apparently blocks messages containing the word soma (don't ask how I got it through!).
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 12, 2007 11:47 AM