Some would argue that Dr. Ross was fundamentally dishonest in working on research that he would later disavow, sort of:
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."So, PZ Myers believes this means faculty should be more selective in admitting students with anti-science beliefs to graduate school. But it seems obvious that absent a total mind-scan, there is no way to determine whether a student is "working within the framework" that he/she fundamentally disagrees with and will later use the cachet of the credential to try and discredit.
I would also submit that Dr. Ross is an exception, in having managed to maintain cognitive dissonance between his young earth creationism and apparently sound paleontology. Most creationists, I reckon, either drop out of science Ph.D. programs or modify their worldview. On balance, admitting students who are eager to learn, but are burdened with contradictory beliefs, probably produces a lot more good than shutting them out. Which, as noted, is not practical anyway. Let a thousand flowers bloom, even if occasionally one turns out to be a prickly pear.
Posts
Help us buy a llama!
2 comments:
I agree with Dkon. Almost all "fundamental christian" types that I have known as a grad student, most end up either dropping out of the program or dramatically shifting their world view, generally becoming a more moderate/universalist christian.
Honestly if the individual can grasp the core concepts of the PHD program then so be it. I mean as an instructor I have put questions like "describe Darwin's theory of evolution" on exams. In one case I actually had an individual actually respond with the statement that they didn't not believe in evolution. My response was simple. The question wasn't if you believe in evolution, it was describe the theory of evolution. Belief is irrelevant.
Basically, no program can choose their students on belief. There are a few paleontologists and other PHD types, out there that have later in their lives adopted a fundamentalist creationist dogma and rejected their earlier world views and lives. That doesn't take away from their earlier work.
This is the same kind of issue. I may think that the man is a crack pot, but I am impressed with his ability to succeed in an academic situation in which he strongly disagreed. I know if I didn't believe in evolution I couldn't be an anthropologist. I certainly couldn't take the Historical Ecology approach to archaeology that I take today.
Agreeing with the gang, it's important to note that internal pressures and scorn do a pretty good job of keeping out or forcing out those who strongly differ from the prevailing ideas in a field, so writing some form of patently discriminatory rules into the handbook is unnecessary. If someone can work within the ground rules, and still isn't convinced, that is their right, and they deserve their degree. Even the odd "prickly pear" amongst the flowers is a vastly better educated prickly pear than his fellow cactus-dwellers, and that may be good in the long run. In the end, this guy's lasting scientific contribution won't be undermining evolution, which is correct and can weather any storm posed by fundamentalists, but rather his study of mesosaurs.
Post a Comment