Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Creation and Science (not) mixing?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2007 :  09:00:24  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
I found an odd article in today's New York Times (sub req'd). With the headline "Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules," the story notes that
quote:
There is nothing much unusual about the 197-page dissertation Marcus R. Ross submitted in December to complete his doctoral degree in geosciences here at the University of Rhode Island... But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.
You read it right.

The guy sounds like a bit of a faker to me. He talks about how
quote:
the methods and theories of paleontology are one 'paradigm' for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, 'that I am separating the different paradigms.'
That sounds sort of weak to me. I think it has more to do with him being able to shoot up to the top of the Creationism/ID charts by being a young earth creationist with a real PhD. Cha-ching!

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2007 :  11:29:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
quote:

the methods and theories of paleontology are one 'paradigm' for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, 'that I am separating the different paradigms.'


What? That is not a paradigm, that is a faith based idea to which he chooses to fit all of the data he gets while ignoring all contrary data.

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

leoofno
Skeptic Friend

USA
346 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2007 :  11:30:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send leoofno a Private Message
Much like Steve Austin who got his PhD in geology from Penn State and went on to big things at the ICR.

"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2007 :  12:04:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message
Or John Wells of the Discovery Institute, a Moonie theologian bankrolled by "Father" Moon to get a bio PhD at UC, with the assistance of Phillip Johnson.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/12/2007 12:06:33
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2007 :  12:52:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
There's money and deceit, and then there is simple cognitive dissonance rationalization: "The science is all correct, I give up trying that route, so God must have made the world already old. He created the whole Universe and included the history with it." But then I didn't look into the dissertation or read the Times article. Guess I should now.


Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/12/2007 12:53:34
Go to Top of Page

beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard

USA
3834 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2007 :  12:57:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send beskeptigal a Private Message
Read it. I think I had it right.

BTW, the link opens to the article without a subscription (which is free I believe anyway) after a 30 sec ad. You can go on a different tab until the ad ends if you have Firefox.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.11 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000