…and this is a 
Here's a little secret about getting a graduate degree: it helps to be a little bit crazy. You are dedicating a good chunk of your life to the pursuit of some very abstract knowledge after all, and as a reward, you get faint hopes of landing a low-paying job in your field. A bigger secret: you can even be a lot crazy and still manage to land that degree (you, in the back: stop pointing and snickering at me!)
So it means precisely nothing when someone brags about finding a Ph.D. willing to espouse utter nonsense. It happens all the time — the degree in itself is not an indicator of credibility. It always amuses me to see the creationists getting so excited at finding someone with a doctorate willing to stand up and disavow everything he supposedly learned so that he can praise Jesus and declare the earth to be only 6,000 years old.
For example, right now a creationist with a Harvard science degree is lecturing in Boston on Evolution: Bankrupt Science; Creationism: Science You Can Bank On. Obviously, Dr Nathaniel Jeanson is one of the fruit loops who plodded through a graduate program.
The good news is that the Boston Skeptics are on his tail and will be reporting on the event. I'll be looking forward to the dissection.
Comments
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 16, 2009 7:13 PM
First report, from a certain Jeff Eyges:
(Via.)
Posted by: LtStorm | August 16, 2009 7:20 PM
The deeper I get into the scientific world as a graduate student, the less a doctorate has meant to me. Well, not me personally, I still think it means a lot for me to *get* one, but it means a lot less to see someone *with* one.
Who cares if someone has a doctorate if they haven't done any work of merit with it? Or do their work in an esoteric field that has no meaning to me, for that matter.
Posted by: Brango | August 16, 2009 7:24 PM
The title alone is enough to send anyone into fits of giggles and laughter. Someone really should make a TV sitcom called The Creationists, there really is nothing funnier!
Posted by: Rick R | August 16, 2009 7:26 PM
"Creationism: Science You Can Bank On."
Ben Stein would LOVE this.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 16, 2009 7:28 PM
By "science you can bank on" are they saying that the underlying purpose of creationism is to reap monetary benefits for its patron by depriving unweary people of proper science and education there by making them less likely to achieve a career that allows them to have financial success which would eliminate competition for these patron and allow them a flow of cheap labor? lol
Seriously though, I always find that these pro-creationist lectures to be very flawed. First off all, these quote-mine like none other. Secondly, part of their agreements has nothing to do with science: It’s just attacking proponents of evolution and accuses them of communism. (The lecture I had stated that Marx drew his ideas from Darwin. I attempted to refute this but my girlfriend who dragged me there said I was being impolite.)
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 16, 2009 7:36 PM
Sort of devalues Harvard science degrees, don't you think?
I wonder if Harvard administrators are proud of him.
Posted by: AnneH
|
August 16, 2009 7:38 PM
I suspect that Jeanson has sold out for the money and attention. A PhD in Biology is a rare catch for the IDiots. His credentials add a 'scientific' sheen to their argument from authority. I'm sure they kiss his butt and fill his wallet in ways that he finds preferable to actually advancing science semi-anonymously in a lab. (That assumes he could get a lab job. What reputable research facility would hire an admitted creationist?) All Jeanson has to do is spin some dazzling creationist BS, and he's livin' large.
..do they teach ethics at Harvard?
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 16, 2009 7:38 PM
I feel sort of the same way about joining the Peace Corps; you have to be at least a little bit out of your gourd to do it. Some volunteers are wackier than others, but we're all a little nuts. (And if you're not crazy when you ship out, you'll probably be crazy by the time you come back, but I digress.)
What is this guy's PhD in, anyway? A "science" degree can mean a lot of things, not all of them substantively related to biology. The title of the event is especially telling. Yes, there IS a lot of money to be had in telling ignorant, faith-addled people what they want to hear.
Posted by: Tom | August 16, 2009 7:43 PM
All the so-called great scientists are dead, and those that are following in their footsteps are dying. On the other hand, all genuine Christians, from the the time of Jesus, are still alive!
Don't you just love being a dead or dying scientist?
Posted by: Carlie | August 16, 2009 7:47 PM
This is the kind of thing that makes me wish that Ph.D.s had to be periodically renewed, like a driver's license. Not having to do the whole thing again, but maybe take a refresher course and pass a short exam in order to retain the title. That would also provide a steady source of income for universities so maybe they could be a little more selective about who they admit in the first place.
Posted by: Kyle R. | August 16, 2009 7:47 PM
For the first time in my life, I'm ashamed to be from Boston.
Posted by: Chrystal Ocean | August 16, 2009 7:47 PM
I've said similar, thanks to my graduate experience and those recounted by other grads.
Getting a PhD is about knowing how to play the game. It's not about distinguishing oneself from one's betters. Said betters take exception to being surpassed by their students. One must instead spout what others before one have spouted, just give it a tiny spin. Originality, pushing boundaries? Nope. Not if you want your PhD.
Posted by: Miles670
|
August 16, 2009 7:49 PM
I'm starting my degree this year and I don't see any reason that I couldn't have still gotten it if I was religious. In fact I took a philosophy class a few weeks ago to see what it was like, (I thought their might be some incite as to how and why religion started), and in a room of around 100 people I was the only Atheist. I was the only person arguing for the side of sense and the professor actually had the balls to ask me if I felt the odds were unfair. I replied 'yes I do think they're unfair because their could be a thousand of you and I'd STILL be the only one with evidence'. It was strange though because at times I swear, I felt like I was in the wrong with so many people giving me dirty looks and telling me bullshit stories. One guy even tried to tell me that Dawkins claimed black people were halfway evolved between man and ape and other people around him started nodding and saying 'I've seen that'. Propaganda spreading mofo's. I couldn't put up with that for four years hell no. I'll stick with intelligent thought thank you.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 16, 2009 7:50 PM
@Alyson Miers: It's a Ph.D. in Science, obviously! He's fully qualified to be a movie doctor now!
Posted by: Renato | August 16, 2009 7:51 PM
What was that Psychological study where people will always listen to a guy in a white coat? Or a guy dressed up as a doctor/policeman/anything of authority?
Posted by: another Harvard bio grad student | August 16, 2009 7:51 PM
The thing that scares me is that the lab he was in, David Scadden's lab, is a top-shelf, cutting-edge lab in the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. I'm also in an HSCI lab, and I can assure you that we talk about evolution a lot.
You have to do a lot of humming with fingers in your ears to be a creationist in a top stem cell lab. We don't even have any strong theists in my lab, let alone creationists.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 16, 2009 7:52 PM
See, Mom, I told you that I didn't need a PhD to get a low-paying job.
Posted by: Mylegacy | August 16, 2009 7:52 PM
As a Management Consultant I used to tell students - when I spoke at schools - that a High School diploma helped to get you a job. A BA would help you become a boss quicker than just having a HS Diploma. A MA would get you to be a boss of groups of bosses quicker than those with just BA's. A PhD would give you SO MUCH knowledge about SO LITTLE that you would end up qualified to drive cab - provided the municipality had no saneness test for its cab drivers.
Posted by: Renato | August 16, 2009 7:59 PM
So wait...should I get a PhD or an MS? (Molecular Bio)
Posted by: Josh | August 16, 2009 8:01 PM
If you're trying to extrapolate this across all PhD programs, then this assertion is a pile of BS. A PhD is absolutely about playing the game, yes, but that game varies some depending on the program. Sure, advisers tend to be petulant assholes with chips on their collective shoulder...they're academics. But they absolutely are not all so insecure that they force their students to march three steps behind their accomplishments. Just because your program stifled creativity, please don't tar us all with the same brush. I'm not writing this to be a dick; I'm just saying that it simply isn't accurate to give the impression that no PhD students are encouraged to try and push the envelope. There are programs where boundaries are there to be kicked in the teeth, if you can figure out how to do it.
Posted by: marc buhler | August 16, 2009 8:09 PM
Off-topic alert - but amusing enough to share with readers here.
The "student" - Josh - who asked Obama to debate him one-on-one Oxford-style (a one-on-one team debate??) that Obama warmly greeted and that Obama gave a well considered answer to, was a republican staffer! (Ohhhh noessss.... this *never ever* happens - does it? ....... Oh. I see. Yet again, eh?)
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/8/16/162818/568
Good thing the internet remembers all.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 16, 2009 8:10 PM
A creationist walks into a stem cell lab.....
Sure there's a joke there somewhere.
Posted by: Josh | August 16, 2009 8:13 PM
Yeah, I know. And none of us have any practical knowledge, either, right? We can push the boundaries of theoretical physics, but can't change tires? Or, what's that one I always hear...can't figure out how to run the FAX machine?
*shakes head*
Posted by: Molly, NYC | August 16, 2009 8:19 PM
The thing that scares me is that the lab he was in, David Scadden's lab, is a top-shelf, cutting-edge lab in the Harvard Stem Cell Institute.
I don't know David Scadden, but how's he taking this?
Posted by: DLC | August 16, 2009 8:23 PM
I'd like Mr Pork-Shank to explain to us why he hates non-believers so, in defiance of his Lord's orders ?
Obviously he's an atheist to defy his god like that.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | August 16, 2009 8:31 PM
Dude, in what way is scientific knowledge abstract? It is about as concrete as it gets.
Posted by: Dawshoss | August 16, 2009 8:34 PM
Ah yes, the same college that asked about my lineage, whether I was descended from any certain governors or not... or was that another Ivy league college I applied to? Either way, I'm getting damn tired at seeing just who really makes it into these things.
For my next application I feel like saying in my personal statement "and furthermore ...come on, you let THIS guy in!" :P
Posted by: MelM | August 16, 2009 8:35 PM
From what I've seen, a Ph.D. is required if one wants to be a first class, creme de la creme crackpot.
Posted by: maddogdelga | August 16, 2009 8:36 PM
Are we sure he's a PhD? A quick google search doesn't pull up a CV, and the research he seems to be doing is associated with human tissue. I thought you needed an MD to do that...
Of course, I could be completely wrong.
If he is an MD, then this would fit into what I like to think of the Salem Hypothesis of Biology...The actual researchers understand the science, but the MD's are more likely to be creationists.
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | August 16, 2009 8:39 PM
#22 by rorschach: Spot on! ... I love your sense of blatant humor, yet your covert humor as well!
Posted by: maddogdelta | August 16, 2009 8:40 PM
Not only can't I spell my name right...
I just went to the church web site, and they say he has a PhD in Biology.
Since a church says it, then it must be true...
Posted by: Sameer | August 16, 2009 8:41 PM
From the Calvary Chapel event page:
This guy just graduated 2 months ago. Does anyone know if he has done any credible research work? Any publications? Who was his advisor and what does (s)he think about her/his student? Either a Harvard biology degree ain't that good anymore or one can be so brainwashed by creationist woo that even graduate school at Harvard can't cure you of it. Neither of the two options sound very good.
Posted by: welshsceptic
|
August 16, 2009 8:45 PM
Theres a creationist on youtube called answersinnwo or something similar, (hes known doctoranswers on blog tv), from what iv'e seen of him he appears to be a nice if misguided person. Anyway (now to the point) he is aparrently taking a geography or geology degree of some sought. When asked by the amazing DPRJones what he would write in the exam if they were to ask (this is just an example) "how old is the earth?"
DocAnswers reply was that he would write 4.6 billion years (have I got that right now) as the answer because "thats what the examiner wants to hear."
surely these means in a few years time, this guy will be going round telling people that the world is 6000 years old, and that the grand canyon was carved by the great flood, and some ppeople will take him seriously because he has a degree.
i know tis wwas a bit long winded but the point of this story is that this obviously how so many creationists get their degrees from real universities. and the ones who get them from fake unis (im looking at you Hovind) are just fucking lazy.
Posted by: Josh | August 16, 2009 8:46 PM
Well, someone with the same name was in the Scadden lab recently:
http://www.massgeneral.org/research/researchlab.aspx?id=1126
And he shows up on at least one paper:
http://www.analesdemedicina.com/trasplantes/noticia.php?noticia=81557
And this is very interesting:
http://v2.ipetitions.com/petition/nohumancloning/signatures
Posted by: SimonC | August 16, 2009 8:47 PM
"Don't you just love being a dead or dying CHRISTIAN"
That would suck, big time. Wasting your life on a god that doesn't exist. I feel for you. All that love wasted on an imaginary creature.
Posted by: DLC | August 16, 2009 8:52 PM
Whoops! that last of mine (at 25) should have gone into the Ken Ham "No Apologies" thread.
Meanwhile :
how can someone spend years in undergrad, more years in a master's program, and then write a PhD dissertation in science, and still manage to be so chock full o
NutsFail ?This guy doesn't even pretend to hold to known or knowable science.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 16, 2009 8:56 PM
Here's a little secret about getting a graduate degree: it helps to be a little bit crazy.
Alcohol helps, too.
And yay for the Boston Skeptics, doing my former home proud.
Posted by: Physicalist | August 16, 2009 9:17 PM
How's the new life, MAJeff? You settled in?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 16, 2009 9:19 PM
I have an MS in Cell/Molecular. I was on the PhD track, and left because the time commitment was killing me (I was pretty much pulling 16 hour days / 7 days a week) and PhD Bios at the time were getting $20K/year. That was pretty much the last straw and I left. Doing the grant proposal dance is not me.
I've been making plenty in the computer field, and there's actually a pretty good chance you're running my code on your computer. Haven't touched Bio in about 15 years.
Posted by: Berny | August 16, 2009 9:24 PM
"Creationism: Science you can bank on"
I'd rather put my money in a sock under my mattress.
Thanks.
Posted by: mxh | August 16, 2009 9:25 PM
@#32
Hey, maybe my 2 month-old PhD will land me some church-dollar packed speaking arrangements! I could finally make more than half of minimum wage! Btw... why advertise that he got his PhD only 2 months ago?
Posted by: Josh | August 16, 2009 9:27 PM
Memories...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | August 16, 2009 9:30 PM
Not even close to settled in. Still far too many boxes, and haven't even moved anything into the new office yet. Tomorrow, there's a three-day tour of the state for new faculty and admins (I think this is a fantastic thing) so no unpacking until Thursday at the earliest. Classes start in a week.
I just want to make a big pot of pho.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 16, 2009 9:33 PM
I certainly don't know what it's like to pursue or earn a PhD, but my experience earning degrees (BA in Political Science; JD from a Top 10 law school) taught me little more than to spit back on paper whatever my professors wanted to hear. Whenever I really sought to learn about a field, or thought I had something to contribute to a class, I was largely dismissed as a nuisance.
I knew how to get the grades. I just had to be a parrot. I realize that getting PhD is different, but it would hardly surprise me if all sorts of creationists with the intelligence to understand biological theory pursue a degree in it, memorize a lot of information, write whatever will earn them that degree, and then announce to the world that they never had any intention of believing it.
Posted by: raven | August 16, 2009 9:35 PM
Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Darwin published the Origin in 1859.
It is physically impossible for Darwin to have influenced Marx without a working time machine. One would think a Harvard PH.D. could lie better than that.
Posted by: toth | August 16, 2009 9:38 PM
Damn it, I forgot all about this. I was so tempted to go ever since seeing an ad for it in the Metro. Thanks, Boston Skeptics, for going in my place!
Posted by: Xenithrys | August 16, 2009 9:42 PM
Chrystal @ 12; Josh @ 20:
I've seen crazy people, lazy people, incompetent people, get PhDs in biology. I've seen a creationist get a Masters in biology. But most are bright, competent and hard-working.
I for one love it when my students do stuff I couldn't do, publish papers I couldn't write, and go on to have stellar careers. That's what makes academia worth doing in spite of the modest salary and long hours.
To be honest, I think being a creationist deserves an automatic fail in science, but when they jump through the right hoops there's nothing we can do about it without getting our asses sued off.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 16, 2009 9:43 PM
raven @ 45:
They may not be very good liars, but since creationists are only limited by their imaginations when presenting "facts," they could just say that Darwin and Marx met in person to discuss their respective theories, and conspired to publish Marx's first to ward off arguments that Darwin influenced him.
It wouldn't surprise me if they said something like that.
Posted by: raven | August 16, 2009 9:55 PM
Needless to say, his scientific career is over. There are a few of these stealth wingnut creos and none of them have ever done any science after they got their degree and came out of the closet.
I don't know much about the market for Ph.D.s who spout fundie death cult propaganda, but seems like it should be saturated soon. They all say the same things over and over and it is always the same collection of lies, quote mines, fallacies and god babble. Some of it is centuries old.
You certainly don't need a Ph.D. to do it. A lot of these creationist speakers come across as barely literate, questionably sane, morons.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 16, 2009 10:00 PM
From Josh's (#34) provided link:
That was in 2004. So five years later, he gets a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard?
I'm okay with the fact that people can have ethical issues with stem cell research -- I don't agree with them, but I'll respect the fact that they have concerns -- but all this business about "standing before a just God," and "facing the One Who created life," man, this cat was seriously BENT years before he got his Ph.D.
You have to wonder if his goal all along was to be a dog-in-the-manger against science.
Posted by: raven | August 16, 2009 10:01 PM
Sure they will make up any lie on the spot.
That one would be rather improbable. Darwin was a Victorian man of wealth and leisure who married into a wealthy family of capitalists. I doubt he and Marx ran in the same social circles or that he would be all that inthused about an uprising of the working classes.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 16, 2009 10:02 PM
Why did this have to happen the one weekend I'm not in Boston? Not fair!
Posted by: Josh | August 16, 2009 10:08 PM
Indeed. It's happened before; it'll happen again.
*shrug*
Posted by: another Harvard bio grad student | August 16, 2009 10:22 PM
Sameer #32:
My vote is for option #2. But come on, that's just unfair -- there's nothing in the water at Harvard that cures creos of their woo. In that sense, Harvard is just like anywhere else: nutcases will occasionally slip in (my/his program, BBS, admits ~70 students a year), and will occasionally be adept enough to graduate. I don't think it speaks about the culture or quality of the program.
Posted by: raven | August 16, 2009 10:26 PM
Really. Science can be fun and worthwhile.
The Jeanson's will spend the next 40 years doing the church basement circuit giving the same creationist talk that is centuries old with a few new lies thrown it. And/or teaching biology at some flea bitten bible college in the middle of nowhere, Where biology is looked upon as dangerous knowledge if not handled with the proper prayers.
Each to their own but that isn't anything most scientists would look forward to.
Posted by: cag | August 16, 2009 10:43 PM
English is a funny language. Consider the presence of silent letters: in the word creationist, the "a" and the "o" are silent.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | August 16, 2009 10:50 PM
Originality, pushing boundaries? Nope. Not if you want your PhD.
Honestly, that wasn't my experience at all. My Ph.D. research turned up something that was truly anomalous, at least based on the prior literature. My advisor told me I could graduate on schedule (since I'd fulfilled the original proposal agreement) but that he would be happy to work with me for an extra year so that we could pursue the question further. Despite my already being 45 at the time, it took me about 10 seconds to decide to stay around and do it. We wound up getting an additional publication that has been cited quite a few times in the entomological literature.
There were a few bad advisor-advisee relationships in my department, but those were exceptions to the departmental culture. Other faculty, including the chair, were known to step in to defuse bad situations. Also, the department (at another university) where I did my postdoc certainly rewarded creativity rather than discouraging it.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 16, 2009 10:51 PM
I thought that was "Creationism: Science that is Bunko."
I wasn't so lucky as to get a low-paying job in my field of expertise; I got a low-paying job in physics instead. That just goes to show that you don't have to know anything to get a particular job. Of course some physicists might complain that they're now forced to become a bank teller because some lame chemist stole their job but I'll just respond with my evil cackle.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | August 16, 2009 10:59 PM
Since Jeanson claims you can bank on creationism, I do hope someone will have asked him which oil companies, by name, are basing their exploration programs on the premise that all marine fossils were laid down in a period of a month or two.
Posted by: Hurin | August 16, 2009 11:00 PM
@19. "So wait...should I get a PhD or an MS? (Molecular Bio)"
It largely depends what you want to do with it. As a MS you can usually land jobs as a research associate, either in industry or in academia. If you want to be a faculty member at a university or start off with a more senior position in industry you want a PhD.
I was working as a technician in an ovarian cancer lab until recently (I have a BS in chemistry) and most of the people I worked with were MS holders. I ended up wanting to go back to school for a PhD, because in my experience the PhD students and Post Docs were given a better deal when it came to interesting projects. I also feel that a PhD probably gives you a better range of employment prospects. On the other hand an MS is quicker to get, less likely to land you in an office, and more likely to find you a position with reasonable hours.
If you aren't sure, you should look at some online job postings and see how the various positions match up with either degree.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 16, 2009 11:01 PM
Unfortunately, I doubt there can be any preventative measures to ensure creo-kooks don't slip out of a university with a degree in Bio. All they need to do is tell the professor what they want to hear. Plenty of fundies have gotten that degree in such a manner at my school.
@raven
That's what I wanted to point out. That and that current dating methods refuted his claims. (When I managed to bring up the dating method, he could give me no reference whatsoever.) I laughed at that idea but the crowded believed him because he graduated from Berkeley.
Posted by: Kristine | August 16, 2009 11:11 PM
"Creationism: Science you can bank on" eh? Geez, not even trying to cheer for poor little ID anymore, are they?
Well, as Bill Dembski said during his pompous podcast, we'll see who's winning the Nobel Prizes in 15 (now 12) years.
Oh, and don't forget that evolution will supposedly be dead by then!
It's a date.
Posted by: MrFire | August 16, 2009 11:18 PM
I've just come back from the 7pm lecture. I'd never been to something like this before, and I had to see it for myself. My conclusion: never again. I would rather be burned alive.
I won't do nearly as good a job as the Boston Skeptics on reporting the entire event (they took an audio recording of the whole thing, including Q+A, so stay posted), so I'll leave you with my (paraphrased, but I believe accurate) favorite: are you sitting comfortably?
Posted by: Helena Handbag | August 16, 2009 11:19 PM
OT - There's a police car in Sri Lanka to manage cephalopods-gone-bad:
http://engrishfunny.com/2009/08/14/engrish-vice-squid/
Posted by: Kristine | August 16, 2009 11:19 PM
P.S. I'm beginning to wonder, folks, if there shouldn't be a Ph.D. in pseudoscience studies - the history of creationism (along with sociological analysis of what drives its perennial mutation) would make a fascinating study of the various discarded and contradictory "absolute truths" the American public has been asked to swallow over the years.
(I have already mused on doing some research on creationist citing patterns.)
If there was a "Creationist Museum," these absurd contradictions that changed according to whatever sounds sciency at the time (when I was a kid it was "creation science") could be communicated to the general public. It would be a more encompassing project than the laudable book by Ron Numbers.
Just an idea.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 16, 2009 11:23 PM
The Earth is at the center of the universe. Why? Because if we look in any direction, we see an equal amount of stars.
Buffybot sez to me:
"With that logic, if you are on a ship in the ocean, just far enough that you can't see any land, you must therefore be in the middle of said ocean!"
Posted by: MrFire | August 16, 2009 11:27 PM
Creationism: L
sciences You Can WBank On.Posted by: Buffybot | August 16, 2009 11:29 PM
Navigation just got so much easier.
Posted by: raven | August 16, 2009 11:30 PM
We aren't even at the center of our own galaxy. Which is a good thing as it has a very large black hole. I don't see equal stars in any direction. Right over head is a band of stars called "The Milky Way".
Nor our we at the center of our own solar system. Geocentrism died scientifically with Copernicus although it lives on as a zombie in fundieland.
Hmmmmm, what has happened to Harvard lately? Are they still teaching the four humors theory of disease and phlogiston?
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 16, 2009 11:34 PM
The Earth is at the center of the universe. Why? Because if we look in any direction, we see an equal amount of stars.
So we still live in the Inquisition? I thought that science proved that wrong centauries ago.
Well then again we still have flat-earth proponents so I wouldn't doubt that they'd say that.
Posted by: Dan W | August 16, 2009 11:35 PM
"Creationism: Science You Can Bank On" ... what? That title is an oxymoron. I'd love to know how loons like this Dr. Jeanson think religion is science. How is dogmatic nonsense, that tries to fit evidence to pre-established conclusions, in any way related to a method that tests things, gains evidence from that testing, then develops the conclusions about this evidence?
Posted by: Dahan | August 16, 2009 11:37 PM
What! What! Criminy.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 16, 2009 11:40 PM
Ever since I started in the workforce, I've been contemplating going back to university and trying for a Ph.D. Reading this today has put me off.
Posted by: Bad Albert | August 16, 2009 11:40 PM
Of course he raised these concerns all through his time at Harvard, right?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 16, 2009 11:46 PM
Just as there are bigots and racists everywhere, there are creationists everywhere. Geography correlates with density, not with the likelihood of finding any. Still, this doesn't make me happy.
Posted by: MrFire | August 16, 2009 11:48 PM
Not true! He actually sang Michael Behe's praises throughout. And apparently, Jeanson's own thesis was on calcium regulation - which he proceeded to tout as an example of irreducible complexity.
I didn't once get tapped for questions, though of course they would have been similar to the objections that others raised. And as you might expect, he put them all through the creationist spin cycle anyway and came out with nicely polished turds of disinformation.
The depressing thing: I've seen real scientists smugly and slickly B.S. their way past troublesome questions in the exactly the same way (for different reasons, of course)...
Posted by: AndymanEC | August 16, 2009 11:52 PM
I attended the 7:00 lecture, and all I can say is... wow. Just wow. The majority of it was the same old tired arguments, micro vs macroevolution, "kinds", salt content in the ocean, grand canyon, irreducible complexity, etc, etc. Throw in a little persecution complex for good measure (evolution is just as unfalsifiable as creation, because the Evilutionist cabal will silence any contradicting evidence). Go down the list on talkorigins, and it will be just as good as having gone, without the trouble of sitting through the closing prayer (which I walked out on to go to the bathroom).
There was also a good amount "all viewpoints are valid, but the Bible is the most valid one" plus "we *have* to accept creationism or God will punish us". Especially in the Q&A session. He mostly refused to give solid answers (surprise surprise) and "didn't understand the question" way too often. The answers he did give were of the God-fearing ones I mentioned above.
The best part was when he put up a chart showing cytochrome C sequence homology between species. He then tried to graph it - first with Yeast being equidistant and radiating out to every other species... then he added in plants, which made it Y-shaped... then he added in another group making it a 3-dimensional pyramid... but he couldn't add in a fourth group because that would require a 4-dimensional diagram!
To put it another way, graphing percent homology between a million species would have required a diagram graphed in a million dimensions (rather than a 3D object with a million vertices), ergo evolution is wrong. Because raw percent homology is a direct indicator of relatedness. And because every species is directly and equally tied to every other species in existence.
To put it yet another way, and perhaps most accurately, he put a bunch of numbers, lines, and babble into a box and *BWAH* ... threw it into our faces. Conveniently, he "didn't understand" every question that was posed on it.
On the plus side, there were a lot of good scientists there, and asked him some tough questions. Well, they would have been tough if he had actually tried to answer them.
Side note - correct me if I'm wrong, but I did a literature search, and the guy has a single 5th author paper to his name. Isn't the unwritten rule that you should have at least one or two first-authors before you get your PhD, or was that just my school?
Posted by: Dr. P | August 16, 2009 11:52 PM
My first response would be that it beats the hell out of being a "man' who bows to superstition he doesn't begin to understand but it occurs to me that your idiocy is helping us keep the name of Charles Darwin alive, so....thanks?! As for christians remaining alive just stop and think about your stupidity before hitting the post button to figure why nobody is losing sleep over that on an atheist's blog.But then you did say you weren't going to post here anymore didn't you, PASTOR Tom?Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 16, 2009 11:56 PM
Our friend Jeanson doesn't read for comprehension. For quite some time now, the astronomers have known that the other galaxies are receding from our own (except for those which are close enough that we feel a gravitational bond). It appears as though our Milky Way is at the centre of the expansion, but an observer in any other galaxy would say the same thing. The galaxies are not receding from a common centre, like shrapnel from an exploding Bond villain headquarters; space itself is expanding, carrying the galaxies with it. The image is reminiscent of Blaise Pascal's line: "The universe is an infinite sphere, whose centre is everywhere and circumference nowhere."
Posted by: Sameer | August 16, 2009 11:57 PM
@#41 : If you are asking me why I would point it out that the guy has graduated 2 months ago - well...I find it odd that a guy who just 2 months ago had presented work that he had conducted, which was considered good enough for a PhD by a bunch of biologists at Harvard, suddenly turns out to be a creationist. That means:
A>He was a closet creationist all along and went along with the program just to get the degree. That would require a great deal of dissonance, (is that the right word) to continuously be at conflict with oneself, to see the data and use reason and analysis to draw logical conclusions, to write a thesis about it and still keep telling oneself that it is all a sham.
OR.
B>He is was just a bad or below average student who scraped through without producing any quality work (hence the questions about his advisor/work). It's not like this doesn't happen - George W. Bush got an MBA from Harvard! But it doesn't look good for the program itself.
@54: I'd think it takes a special kind of kook to graduate from Harvard with a PhD in biology and still be a creationist. So either the guy is a special kind of kook (case A above) or case B. I guess it's a bit unfair to attribute the failure to educate this guy to the program itself but c'mon I'd expect as much from Harvard!
Posted by: AndymanEC | August 17, 2009 12:04 AM
Oh, and as an addendum:
He finished his talk by stating pretty much that the Bible is a scientific resource, since it is purely 100% factual historical truth (and in the Q&A stated that other cultures' histories don't line up with it because they lost information through their oral traditions).
Most importantly, though, that anyone Witnessing (capital W) is just as accurate as the Bible and should be trusted without question.
Well, I'll agree that they'd be just as accurate as the Bible.
Posted by: luna1580 | August 17, 2009 12:11 AM
damn, texas again:
http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=10933571
http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?s=10932756 =click here
honestly i have no problem w/them teaching "the bible as literature" or somesuch once the kids are old enough to understand what "literature" even means (had a good college course like that at a state school), but all public schools at all grade levels????
and their site crashed my browser (but in fairness it could be all safari's fault, sent them a report)
Posted by: Dr. P | August 17, 2009 12:11 AM
I think this is a cynical double entendre that he chuckles over /wanks off to after the crowd disperses....how much more is it worth to him annually than actually carrying on meaningful research over the next several years?Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 12:13 AM
I'd think it takes a special kind of kook to graduate from Harvard with a PhD in biology and still be a creationist.
I got one name for ya:
Jonathan Wells
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)
We knew he was a creationist the whole time (I was a grad student in the same building at the time). He had lots of funding, mostly provided by Rev Moon (yup, he's a Moony too).
How did he get a degree?
He did the required work, barely.
Should he have even been allowed to participate in the program?
good question. In fact, such a good question that it was why they let him participate - I think they thought it would be a good experiment.
Hindsight being what it is...
It was not a good idea IMO.
Posted by: RBH | August 17, 2009 12:13 AM
AndymanEC wrote
Man, you mean it ain't just the Pope who's infallible? I can see the blood flowing in the aisles and under the pews already when those Witnesses start disagreeing. As they always do.Posted by: CelticLC | August 17, 2009 12:14 AM
It is very unfortunate that people can get Ph.D.s and not learn anything about critical thinking and objective reasoning. I admit that when I started my PhD I was a Christian, not a creationist and certainly I had no issues about evolution being an accepted part of science. Before I finished the end of my PhD I was well on the route to becomming an Atheist. I can see Drs of science being religious but not creationists. I wonder how many of them separate their religion and science in their own minds?
Posted by: MrFire | August 17, 2009 12:28 AM
AndymanEC @77:
Oh God, yeah...that. What exactly was his point? The table reminded me of one of those boxes you get on maps, telling how far cities are from each other. I guess his argument was, if Seattle is 2000 miles from Dallas, which is 2000 miles from Boston, which is 1000 miles from Chicago...etc...if I can't draw some arbitrary multi-dimensional graph to represent them, that proves the interstate freeways don't exist?
Posted by: not a gator | August 17, 2009 12:34 AM
Well, *hrm*, when I was an undergrad I did meet a theoretical physicist who couldn't find his way to the lecture hall in a building with one hallway.
Charitably, I assumed he was visiting from another university but my prof sadly informed me that in fact he was in our department...
That was the worst case, but we also had the prof who had been forbidden to ever teach another undergraduate class. :D I think the same thing happened to Feynman. XD
Posted by: shonny | August 17, 2009 12:47 AM
B-b-b-but Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson is right, prostitution is so much more bankable than REAL science. Just ask any of the other IDiot-whores!
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 17, 2009 12:52 AM
raven @ 51:
Yes, well, I'm not sure they care much that their lies seem probable.
Besides, you clearly don't appreciate what Satan can do for people once they sell their souls to him. Marx and Darwin could have been magically transported to somewhere together to discuss their nefarious plots together.
;)
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 17, 2009 1:00 AM
mxh @ 41:
Two years is a relatively long time when you consider that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Posted by: raven | August 17, 2009 1:06 AM
I'm beginning to see what satan could do. Looks like Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson sold his soul to somebody. At a bargain basement price.
I've come to the conclusion that fundie xianity is inverted. Meaning that they are the opposite of xianity. This is BTW, a real psychological or philosophical phenomenon or theory.
Worship an inept, sadistic, monster of a god-- check
Lie continuously. If the devil is the father of lies.....--check
Practice human child sacrifice (faith healing disasters)--check
Malevolent, destructive nihilists--check
I can't tell fundie xianity apart from what satanic cults would look like.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 17, 2009 1:13 AM
Raven @ 51:
Pffft. Here's the story: They met each other one rainy morning in the British Museum, quite by coincidence, while looking at the Rosetta Stone, and, as strangers will sometimes do in museums, struck up a conversation. While Darwin wasn't enthused at all about an uprising of the working class, Marx immediately embraced Darwin's explanation of evolution, and from that day forward, Marx based his political theories on the ToE.
Prove it didn't happen!
Posted by: raven | August 17, 2009 1:26 AM
That is easy. I was there. All they did was complain about the weather.
I actually did exactly that one rainy morning. Look at the Rosetta Stone. It is right past the entrance. For some reason, the Rosetta Stone always fascinated me as a kid. I never thought at the time that I'd actually see it nor did I know where it was until I walked into the British Museum. That place is truly amazing.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 17, 2009 1:36 AM
Raven @ 94:
The day I went to the British Museum, it was a bright, sunny, and warm-for-fall day. (That description of the weather will make many immediately doubt my statement is true.)
Posted by: BMS | August 17, 2009 2:15 AM
PZed sed:
If you consider $65,000, or howz about $89,000 (what DW earns), low paying.
There's an exception to every rule . . .
Posted by: Ritchie Annand | August 17, 2009 2:44 AM
And now... the sound of science being strangled.
You gave me my de-gree
*strangle* *cough* *choke* ... *sputter*
Posted by: Joe Fredette | August 17, 2009 2:57 AM
Lies! Harvard is in Cambridge! You evil atheists no nothing!
...
It's fun to be a fundie sometimes.
Posted by: scrabcake | August 17, 2009 3:08 AM
Ivy league schools are about 70% smart people who have worked hard to get where they are. About 5% of the remainder are brilliant people who are also batguano crazy and have wealthy parents who use PhD programs as a respectable and expensive substitute for a mental institution. And the other 25% are madden-playing frat boys and and general dumbshits whose daddy's/mommy's money and connections got them into the Ivy league and who will soon be ruining a world near you.
At least, that's the way it seemed to me.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 3:26 AM
If you consider $65,000, or howz about $89,000 (what DW earns), low paying.
There's an exception to every rule . . .
Why make such a stupid statement?
go figure, there are outliers everywhere!
phht.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 17, 2009 3:43 AM
Tom @ 9:
People who never bought my magic beans are dead. And if you won't buy my magic beans now, you're dying. On the other hand, all the people who do buy my magic beans get to have eternal life atop the beanstalk among nothing but flowers, rainbows and lollipops!
Don't you just love being one of the dying people, who refuses to buy my magic beans?
Posted by: Didac
|
August 17, 2009 3:50 AM
To some extent I can understand. It's very hard to get a job those days. And if you can get paid (and very well, indeed) for defending creationism, a lot of Ph.D. people will be prepared for defending it. As a matter of fact, a lot of people will be prepared for defending, say, Lysenkoism or Aquatic Ape Hypothesis if there were powerful sects behind these long-discredited ideas. The only reason there are no more Ph.D. defending Creationism is that they are afraid that doing so they destroy their very seldom opportunities to get a real scientific/academic job. Curiously enough, all these demonstrate the validity of the "fight for survival" idea.
Posted by: XD | August 17, 2009 5:00 AM
Two months.Posted by: louis14 | August 17, 2009 5:47 AM
Most of the folks here are academics, it seems. I'm not; 'for my sins' I left school at 16.
In all seriousness, can anybody here explain to me how it is possible for someone to pass through Harvard and gain a PhD in biology without understanding what even I know about biology and the scientific method? (ie, what I've picked up from reading a couple of Richard Dawkins' books and watching David Attenborough nature programs).
For Jeanson to gain a PhD doesn't just devalue a PhD. From where I'm standing, it makes a nonsense of it. Honestly, what gives??
Posted by: Josh | August 17, 2009 6:05 AM
Kind of hard for me to evaluate this, since I don't have direct experience with students from all eight of them as students. But from the direct experience that I do have (from being at two and from interacting with students from four others in an academic capacity), I figure that if you drop the 25% number down a bit (to maybe 20%), this seems about right.
Also, a question: why are you capitalizing ivy but not league? Seems odd.
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 17, 2009 6:23 AM
The core thing is scientists themselve are not necessarily above the average population when it comes to integrity and honesty (This PhD fellow is an example)... it is the scientific method itself that is unbiased.
Posted by: InfidelAvenger | August 17, 2009 6:31 AM
Boston is not a land of creationsists. Creationists are an invasive species.
Posted by: Josh | August 17, 2009 6:48 AM
I'm not really sure what you're point is. I know science is fun and worthwhile, thanks. Otherwise, my life probably wouldn't center on it. I was responding to this (from Xenithrys):
in which I agree with everything. Actually, I go a little further. I don't just think creationism is an epic fail in science; I think it's symptomatic of an epic fail at life. I agree with others herein that I can't see how one could bullshit their way through a PhD program in the sciences. A science PhD in the U.S. will chew up the better part of a decade, if you're fast; you'd have to be one hell of an actor or remarkable at compartmentalizing your brain to do it as a real YEC. I don't really understand how one pulls it off. But, given that, to echo what Xenithrys wrote, I don't understand what we're supposed to do if a creationist jumps through all of the hoops laid out in a given PhD program. I think it comes back to: do you have to accept evolution in order to study it?
But it's not like this issue is new. Recall the situation with Marcus Ross and the University of Rhode Island (which has been chewed over a lot):
http://creation.com/beneath-the-surface-with-marine-reptiles
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFD8163EF937A25751C0A9619C8B63
http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/02/intellectual_honesty_in_scienc.php
URI has taken a ton of shit for having graduated Ross, but I'm not sure what they were really supposed to have done. Do universities really want to start behaving like seminaries when it comes to screening the worldviews of potential students (is this the educational equivalent of how the NMNH treats YEC visitors versus how the creation "museum" treats science-based ones)? And if we start writing letters to Harvard Magazine regarding Jeanson, does the creationist camp then have a demonstrable case of a martyr that we're trying to ExpelTM?
Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 17, 2009 7:08 AM
Peter Karim @106
Watch this to see why that might be the understatement of the century...very strangely the truly (IMHO) evil but very distinguished scientists mentioned in this talk insist on pushing the "Controversy"
Warning the talk is about an hour long.
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
Posted by: MsMisery | August 17, 2009 7:19 AM
Makes me wonder why I'm spending 14 hrs a day, 7 days a week in the lab trying to get the same degree.
"Tricia McMillian?" he said. "What are you doing here?"
"Same as you," she said, "I hitched a lift. After all with a degree in Maths and another in astrophysics what else was there to do? It was either that or the dole queue again on Monday." - Douglas Adams
Posted by: Heidi | August 17, 2009 7:38 AM
@Dawshoss #27:
Damn, if I'd known that was all they cared about, I would have applied.
Part of me wishes I'd gone to this thing, but... "Each lecture will be preceded by a contemporary worship band." It's not enough they have to stand up there all day and lie, but then they have to make my ears bleed with Jesus rock? Bleh. Plus I don't live anywhere with T access, so it would've been a 1.5 hr. drive. Ah, central Mass, you are near nothing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 17, 2009 8:04 AM
My guess is they understand it fine. Enough that they can "fake" their way through the whole process. The problem comes that the pull of their faith far outweighs any ethical need to follow what they have learned. Instead they have to "protect" their religion by fighting against what the understand.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 17, 2009 8:10 AM
When you see this, don't you sometimes regret the time of ID? It was a time when opponents of evolution were defending pseudo-science.
Now, things have changed. What we're up against is anti-science. According to Ben Stein, science leads to killing people. According to Ken Ham, reason is untrustworthy and misleading, and shouldn't be listened to. Even William Dembski dropped his fantasy maths and concentrates on training Baptist ministers. All proud of being Biblical literalists.
Don't you (just a little bit) miss Michael Behe sometimes...?
Posted by: Foucault Loco | August 17, 2009 8:11 AM
Josh @108--I agree. I suspect most Pharynguloids
would be uncomfortable with the notion of some sort
of loyalty oath or purity pledge you have to recite,
possibly with your hand on a copy of On the Origin
of Species... before you will be awarded your degree.
Posted by: BenW
|
August 17, 2009 8:13 AM
Some of us are getting PhD's in business disciplines. That is not bad money, not bad money at all. ^_^
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
August 17, 2009 8:22 AM
At the Home Bank.
Posted by: Kalibhakta | August 17, 2009 8:29 AM
As I say to the rare person who acts all impressed that I have a Ph.D.: "A monkey could get a doctorate. I've seen it happen."
Tangential musings: the quality of doctoral education has declined in the humanities because faculty don't tend to be rewarded for serving as mentors/advisers. It doesn't seem that this lack of rewards would be quite as pervasive in the sciences, given the nature of scientific work. I know that my university has finally awakened to the fact that graduate ed. is "in crisis" and now we're getting all fired up to do something about it... something...
Posted by: SLC | August 17, 2009 8:33 AM
Another example of a creationist getting a PhD at Harvard is the infamous Kurt Wise, BS in geology from Un. of Chicago, PhD in paleontology from Harvard (his adviser was none other then Stephen J. Gould!).
Posted by: Jackie Lavache | August 17, 2009 8:48 AM
I wish I could have gone, but alas I had things to do. My buddy Zak went and we talked about it in detail on latest podcast which should be released sometime this week. www.bostonatheists.org
Posted by: MadScientist | August 17, 2009 8:51 AM
@MrFire #63: Thanks for that. Obviously the statement was made by some moron who can't even count. Even a 6-year-old looking up at the sky can tell you there seems to be more stars in some places and fewer in others. Of course there is the bulk of our galaxy - the Milky Way - which appears as a glowing band in the sky; our eyes can't even resolve the light into individual stars.
Posted by: Stanton | August 17, 2009 9:03 AM
You forgot the torrid, bodice-ripping seduction part.
How sloppy.
Posted by: Kismet | August 17, 2009 9:11 AM
Someone tell me this is not true: you need an MD to work on human tissue in a god damn petri dish? (@#29) This is the most disturbing thing I have read in a long time and I hope you are wrong. (considering that my future research career that I envisoned would be totally screwed if that were true)
Posted by: co | August 17, 2009 9:30 AM
luna1580, #82:
Even apart from the sheer lunacy shown in that Texas news, I couldn't believe the original article had "per say" in it, but by dawg it did! Christonacracker!
Posted by: James F | August 17, 2009 9:49 AM
Kismet #122
It's most definitely not true, don't worry!
Posted by: MrFire | August 17, 2009 9:56 AM
MadScientist @120:
He made what I believe were cryptic references to Hubble Ultra Deep Field images, to try and couch that particular claim in the context of "secular research" (Yes, he did fucking say that).
And that reminds me: one of his most grating tics was a constant reference to "my colleagues [at the ICR], who are working on such-and-such right now..."
All I could think of was the Academy of Projectors from Gulliver's Travels.
Posted by: Lilith | August 17, 2009 10:10 AM
I was thoroughly dissolusioned about the quality of PhDs (especially in the Humanities) when I spent time working at one of Australia's better universities in the Nineties on a research project about the PhD process, part of which which involved series of interviews with both postgraduate students and faculty.
Numberous stories came out about people basically buying their degrees - from actually paying unscrupulous advisers to write them (at the time it cost about Aus$10,000), to the extra 'help' that full-fee paying overseas students for whom English is a second language get with their work (which means they are pretty much always awarded their degrees, whether they actually did the work or not - no university can afford to lose those lucretive foreign students when they can be changed far more than local students on HECS).
The saddest tale I recall was of a guy from a SE Asian country who went home with his brand new 'bought' PhD, was given a government job on the basis of it, and after a few weeks he committed suicide because he was totally unable to do the job because he had basically been carried by other through the whole degree.
And louis14@#104, don't worry, you are not the only poster without a degree. I don't have one either (I did graduate high school and in the last few years picked up a couple of technical diplomas) but it's never stopped me getting interesting jobs or continuing to educate myself (including reading sites like this).
Posted by: Tom | August 17, 2009 11:07 AM
Simon says...
"Don't you just love being a dead or dying CHRISTIAN"
You certainly need some help, as you are unable to comprehend what you read. I stated the following: "On the other hand, all genuine Christians, from the the time of Jesus, are still alive!" Yet you replied with the above inane comment.
I am delighted that you are wading through a number of science text books, which are based on assumptions, speculations and conjecture. At the end of this process, some idiot would declared that you are very intelligent!
Don't you just love fooling yourself? And that is a rhetorical question, you may pleased to learn!
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 17, 2009 11:23 AM
Not the ones who've had their heads lopped off by other Immortals.
Posted by: MrFire | August 17, 2009 11:32 AM
It would seem you are implying that science is of no value. Might I invite you to give up all your science-infected possesions to me, while you take off into the woods to howl at the moon, as God intended?
To the more receptive readers out there, I am delighted to inform you that science text books are actually based on observations, hypotheses, predictions, experiments, refutations, validations, and amendments. The Bible, however, is an excellent place to look for assumptions, speculations, and conjecture - far outstripping science textbooks in this regard, in every way.
The irony being, you clearly do not understand the concept of a rhetorical question, and have just implied that you love fooling yourself.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
August 17, 2009 11:44 AM
I don't have a ph.d., but I'd still lie for Jesus if they paid me well enough.
(Sorry - I like money.)
Posted by: aratina cage | August 17, 2009 12:04 PM
How soon until we get started on thattakedowncritique of the Worldwide Church of God? Tom has got ants in his pants about it. He may explode if we don't hurry.Posted by: Tulse | August 17, 2009 12:04 PM
I think you've misheard the lyrics:
I'm doing science and I'm still alive.
I feel fantastic and I'm still alive.
While you're dying I'll be still alive.
And when you're dead I will be still alive.
Still alive
Still alive
However, Heaven, like the cake, is a lie.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton
|
August 17, 2009 1:00 PM
Raven @51,
Darwin was a Victorian man of wealth and leisure who married into a wealthy family of capitalists. I doubt he and Marx ran in the same social circles
You might be surprised. Charles married into a wealthy family of capitalists; but Karl befriended one. Recall the words of the prophet:
For all that, sadly, I don't think they ever had more than one exchange of (highly formal, not very substantive) letters.Pity, but still, if I could go back in time to arrange a Dinner Party That Darwin Never Had, the guest wouldn't be Marx but Mendel. (Hey, what do you know - a priest who actually accomplished something worthwhile!)
Posted by: Rilke's Granddaughter | August 17, 2009 1:19 PM
Anyone know if that's our own, sweet Tom Estes? If so, we've caught him dead on the bearing false witness rap. He's certainly as ignorant as TEstes.
Posted by: shonny | August 17, 2009 2:23 PM
It sure beats being a Fuckwit for christTM anytime!
Posted by: Jon H | August 17, 2009 3:46 PM
The worst thing is that this event was held right in the Longwood Medical Area, where Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, etc, are located.
Posted by: Laurie | August 17, 2009 5:14 PM
Nooooooooooooooo! Not in Boston!
(Sigh. I like to fool myself that we are a bit insulated from this non-sense here in sensible New England. I guess not.)
Posted by: louis14 | August 17, 2009 6:46 PM
Me, then Rev.BigDumbChimp #112
My guess is they understand it fine. Enough that they can "fake" their way through the whole process. The problem comes that the pull of their faith far outweighs any ethical need to follow what they have learned. Instead they have to "protect" their religion by fighting against what the understand.
Gah. I really find it difficult to get my head around the amount of deception you have to do to both yourself and others, in order to accomplish this. I think if I attempted it, I'd probably give myself heart disease!
I suppose you can't ban people from entry into a university for deciding you're going to use your qualification dishonestly, it just seems amazing to me that people can make it through without being won over by the scientific method.
Posted by: louis14 | August 17, 2009 6:49 PM
Hmm. Blockquotes worked properly in preview there, but not in the post. My comment starts at "Gah."
Posted by: NoGurus | August 17, 2009 7:13 PM
I live in Boston and I rarely run into fundies. We have very few of the Assembly of God evangelical type churches around here.
Having said that Boston does have a long history of founding religions and their mother churches, like the creepy mother church of Christian Scientist (a monstrously conspicuous church in the Back Bay), as well as a giant Church of Scientology on Beacon Street, and the mother church of Unitarianism on Boylston.
It is a religiously tolerant place where everyone gets their say, atheists included, without many problems. And I don't believe the Creationist argument, despite being heard, will gain much traction here.
PhD's have to pass the scrutiny of their peers when presenting evidence, and it sounds like this guy got his wings torched pretty badly. In this academic environment, clap trap like this gets eviscerated pretty quickly.
Finally, as one who works and hangs around with PhD types, I can assure you I know quite a few wacky ones, and I know quite a few less "intelligent" people with common sense that would not go near these kooky churches and ideas.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 7:20 PM
Not the ones who've had their heads lopped off by other Immortals.
Well, there can be only one, after all.
:p
Posted by: tigtog | August 17, 2009 8:08 PM
@mxh #41
I bet it's someone thinking that it will make him appear to be Up To Date on All The Latest Science.
Posted by: SimonC | August 17, 2009 8:16 PM
Tom babbled: "I am delighted that you are wading through a number of science text books, which are based on assumptions, speculations and conjecture. At the end of this process, some idiot would declared that you are very intelligent!"
Project much, Tom? Sounds to me like the text you are describing is the bible. Does your 'knowledge' from the bible make you feel smart? I hope so, because it makes you appear dismally stupid. Care to reply? Maybe get your dim-witted ass kicked from here to next thursday? I presently have some spare time to devote to the mentally impaired.
Posted by: James F | August 17, 2009 10:03 PM
FYI,
Boston is not the Land of Creationists. It is the Land of the Glass Pinecones.
*wonders if he was the only one who thought that...*
Posted by: thyme | August 18, 2009 1:19 AM
An excerpt of Jeanson talking about vitamin D and calcium regulation is up. There's a link in the description with a partial transcript, as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnQDQs3Fp_Q
Posted by: Lucifer | August 18, 2009 2:01 AM
Heh. No, you are the one with comprehension problems. Let's postulate that you were "correct" in your statement -- that is, we will pretend, for the sake of argument, that you were. However, no-one from the time of Jesus is still alive! Therefore, there are no "genuine" Christians. Therefore, you are not a "genuine" Christian. Therefore, you too will die, just like all of the Christians, from the time of Jesus, who are now dead.
See? Logic. Pity you're not intelligent enough to figure it out on your own.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 18, 2009 6:36 AM
@Lucifer: But they are still alive! Just...in another dimension! And they're watching you masturbate! Like Ceiling Cat.