Ethical to bar creationist pseudo-scientists from science?

[mr friendly guy]

Flip it around - would you bar an atheist from receiving a theology degree?

Unless an atheist has to believe in the theology, no. He just has to be able to know what religious people believe and be familiar with religious arguments, no? If he submits a work, he doesn't necessary have to believe it to be false, if he adds the disclaimer "according to the beliefs of such and such a religion".

[Elaro]

I have no problem requiring ethical standards for any professional, particularly in the hard sciences. It strikes me as an excellent idea - doctors have a code of ethics, as do soldiers, teachers, and (theoretically) most business professionals. Under the current system, however, you cannot deny somebody who have completed all academic requirements a degree in the hard sciences because they happen to be dipshits who don't really believe everything they've studied.

Yeah, except that a PhD marks the recipient as an authority figure in a given subject. People, in general, don't have time to verify everything that authority figures say, so we trust these PhD-holders when they tell us things. But, if the PhD-holder doesn't believe what he's saying, then why should I, the layman, trust what he's saying?

What I mean is, the PhD certification is, essentially, a guarantee, that "this guy (who recieved the PhD) knows what he's talking about, and you don't need to doubt what he says concerning his field of study, because he has proven that he can satisfy those doubts." Except that, in this case, this guy's only acting like he knows what he's talking about, so everything that he says has to be taken with a grain of salt; thus defeating the entire purpose of the certification.

And taking it a step farther, even professional codes of ethics don't govern beliefs - they govern behavior and actions - "First, do no harm" for example. I would have a real problem with a professional code of ethics that governed one's personal beliefs.

Except that, in the case of a paleontologist, some of his main professional "behaviors and actions" involve telling other people what he knows, and if he doesn't believe what he knows, then he really doesn't know, which is what this whole thing boils down to. He is only pretending to know. He doesn't actually know.

The reason he shouldn't have his PhD is because he's intellectually dishonest, which I'm pretty sure flies in the face of what's expected of a scientist.

[Big Phil]

I can understand completely why scientists would be uncomfortable with graduating a student who is capable of submitting papers that he does not actually believe to be accurate. That's what's happening here; the student believes old-Earth geology to be false, yet he submits old-Earth geology papers because young-Earth creationism is totally bogus science.

Is it really so hard to come out and say that science, while it lacks the heavily developed ethics codes of medicine or engineering, still has some ethics, and one of them is that you can't graduate scientists who are willing to publish papers that they don't actually believe to be accurate?

I'm going to re-quote Mike here instead of responding point by point to everybody.

Technically, this guy has earned his degree. Whether he's intellectually dishonest or not, he's fulfilled the requirements to earn a degree.

The question, to me, seems to be whether scientists should have a code of ethics to which they must adhere as a part of earning their degree or working within their field? This is a different question than whether he's earned the degree... at least at the moment. Add in a code of ethics saying you can't publish something you believe to be untrue or the like (and one he's likely to refuse to follow given his beliefs) and that may solve this problem of wankers getting degrees in fields just to bash said fields.

[Mr Flibble]

First, I want to say I'm not a YEC. I'm a Christian, and I hold degrees in geology and hydrology. I also work as an environmental consultant and I can tell you that the origin of human life and the creation of the earth, as a theory, has no application to 99% of professional geology. To be a registered geologist (in california) you ahve to take a certification test where half of it is a sort of 'trivia' section, and then the other half is applied theory problem solving. Now, I admit that I havn't been working long enough to have taken the test yet, but are you saying that if someone were to pass the test with flying colors (which would be a shock, since it has a 70% fail rate) that their belief that the universe is 6000 years old should disqualify them from work?

First of all I am also a professional geologist, and finishing off my degree (whilst I have completed all the geology subjects available in my course, and yes I am currently employed as a geologist). Secondly quote where I said that the age of the Earth had an application in professional geology? What I said was any understanding of plate tectonics, the principle of superposition or the the principle of uniformitarianism is going to demonstrate that the Earth cannot possibly be merely 6000 years old. I am arguing that any decent test should be able to weed out someone with such a flawed understanding of these basic principles, that they don't see the age of the Earth is more than 6000 years. Are you seriously going to claim that plate tectonics or the principle of superposition have very little application for a professional geologist?

Note that I am talking about the age of the Earth I would be making the same argument about young earth evolutionists if such a thing were to exist. I'm pretty sure that most professional geologists are going to come across the phrase "millions of years" somewhere in their career, so their understanding of the age of the Earth is relevant, even if they might not need to apply the theory, the most basically skilled geologist should be able to come up with old Earth theory on their own, based on their own observations.

[Darth Wong]

This is like asking if anyone would have a problem with someone becoming a medical doctor if it turned out that he believed germ theory is bullshit and that all sickness is actually caused by evil spirit possession. "Oh, but he knows how to say the right things to get by the exams" one might say. Would you want this nutbar doing surgery on you?

[mr friendly guy]

This is like asking if anyone would have a problem with someone becoming a medical doctor if it turned out that he believed germ theory is bullshit and that all sickness is actually caused by evil spirit possession. "Oh, but he knows how to say the right things to get by the exams" one might say. Would you want this nutbar doing surgery on you?

But Sanchez would just say that such a doctor won't be employed for long. But wouldn't it be better is said person just wasn't allowed to past in the first place?

[Darth Servo]

Flip it around - would you bar an atheist from receiving a theology degree?

Theology degrees don't carry any responsibility to behave in any certain way the way science, engineering, medicine, etc do.
Scientists get into a heated debate about something, the education system and future discoveries are at stake. Theologians get into a heated debate about something and the worst that happens is they have to print new versions of their little pamphlets.

[Darth Wong]

Flip it around - would you bar an atheist from receiving a theology degree?

Theology degrees don't carry any responsibility to behave in any certain way the way science, engineering, medicine, etc do.
Scientists get into a heated debate about something, the education system and future discoveries are at stake. Theologians get into a heated debate about something and the worst that happens is they have to print new versions of their little pamphlets.

Theology is like arguing about Star Wars or Star Trek.

[HaakonKL]

Theology is like arguing about Star Wars or Star Trek.

And you don't give Darkstar a PhD in applied ICS, now do you?


Seriously though, I do think that this should be split into two questions:
"Can they withhold his degree?" and "Should they withhold his degree?"
Going by the arguments of the board, it seems that the answers are "no" to the first one and "yes" to the second one.

[mr friendly guy]

Theology is like arguing about Star Wars or Star Trek.

Now, now. At least Star Trek or Star Wars in itself entertains some people. Theology can't even do that.

[Darth Servo]

Theology is like arguing about Star Wars or Star Trek.

Even in sci-fi debates, you can still use objective means to come to your conclusions. With theology all you have is:

Priest: This verse means 'X'
Minister: No, it means 'Y'
Evangelical: No, it means 'Z'
Priest: No, it means 'X'

repeat ad nauseum.

[Darth Wong]

Theology is like arguing about Star Wars or Star Trek.

Even in sci-fi debates, you can still use objective means to come to your conclusions. With theology all you have is:

Priest: This verse means 'X'
Minister: No, it means 'Y'
Evangelical: No, it means 'Z'
Priest: No, it means 'X'

repeat ad nauseum.

That's just because movies are visual media that allow direct observation, unlike poetic literature which must always be creatively interpreted. But the point of similarity is that in both cases, the degree only signifies that one knows how to play a particular game. A science degree, on the other hand, has to do with real-life.

[Uranocene]

My BS in chemistry came with a concentration in geology. I believe in God, but I'm not an YEC. It would be irresponsible of me as a scientist to reject something that can be obviously proven as opposed to flood geology, which is laughable by any standard. Scientists have a responsibility to publish real science, not false science.

[The Dude]

I'm conflicted as to whether universities should be permitted to deny degrees on the basis of the student's personal beliefs or their perceived ethics (other than plagarism and cheating standards), as opposed to strictly the quality of submitted work or perfomance on oral exams. Further, it could be argued that honestly reporting results despite the fact that they contradict your personal beliefs represents exemplary research ethics.

I think the last quote comes closest to a good justification for denial: if he is a YEC and therefore an avowed denier of fundamental and well-established principles of his field, then his understanding of the scientific method, and the state of knowledge in his field, will be demonstrably not up to par for a doctoral candidate (assuming he doesn't lie). It is perfectly legitimate to ask questions on basics (including ones pertinent to creastionist arguments) during a defense, and fail him if his answers are unsatisfactory.

[The Dude]

Forgot to add:

This guy is almost certainly operating on the Jonathan Wells model. Wells is a creationist who was sent to graduate school by the Moonies for the express purpose of getting credentials he could exploit to lend authority to his attacks on evolution.

[Wicked Pilot]

Sorry about jumping into the thread late.

And I love the quip about how the biologist would only write letters of recommendation for people who could give a scientific explanation for how humans came to be!

Why should it be any different? If in his professional opinion he doesn't reccommend someone then why should he write a letter of recommendation for them? Since when is it anyone's right to be spoken highly of?

And Dr. Dini is absolutely correct in saying that advance science degrees should only be conferred to people who understand and are practitioners of science.

I kinda disagree. If they did the work and understand the subject matter then they earned the degree. If they want to piss on it later that's their own decision. In their pursuit of creationism they may make a real scientific discovery that broadens our understanding of the universe, or more likely they'll just get laughed out of the establishment and end up at Liberty where real degrees are redundent.

Another issue however is professional certification. If for example you're in the medical field and don't believe in germ theory, then that should be an automatic no-go for a license to conduct medicine. None of this 'let the market sort it out' nonsense, simply no license, period. You can take your degree and go into research to try and prove your bullshit true, and if successful then you can be board certified. But until then no way.

Flip it around - would you bar an atheist from receiving a theology degree?

Not taking into account that most schools of theology require signing of 'statements of belief' as part of admission, I'd say if they do the work, and pass the test, then they earned the degree. But if the Southern Baptist or whichever group refuses to accredit/certify then as preist/pastors then that's fine by me.

[Il Saggiatore]

Is it really so hard to come out and say that science, while it lacks the heavily developed ethics codes of medicine or engineering, still has some ethics, and one of them is that you can't graduate scientists who are willing to publish papers that they don't actually believe to be accurate?

The question, to me, seems to be whether scientists should have a code of ethics to which they must adhere as a part of earning their degree or working within their field? This is a different question than whether he's earned the degree... at least at the moment. Add in a code of ethics saying you can't publish something you believe to be untrue or the like (and one he's likely to refuse to follow given his beliefs) and that may solve this problem of wankers getting degrees in fields just to bash said fields.

I think the problem is that scientists can hardly imagine that somebody would try to publish something they don't believe is accurate.

Usually it is the other way 'round, with people being dishonest in trying to publish something that they believe is accurate but cannot prove it.

Therefore the emphasis has been on properly supported arguments.
I would be completely caught by surprise if somebody wrote a good scientific paper and then said that he does not believe a word of it.