Cool-aid, creationism, and the communist threat

A number of the internet’s shriller McCarthyist scaremongers have been getting their knickers in a twist over the recent New York Times article describing the paleontologist Marcus Ross. Dr. Ross has landed himself on the fanatical secularists’ blacklist for “using his secular credentials for promoting global communism witchcraft dangerous creationist ideologies and opposing the teaching of evolution in schools.

Exactly how has he done this? At the risk of attracting the fire of the witchhunters myself, let me suggest a blasphemous methodology. Let’s look at the evidence.

Dr. Ross is a self-proclaimed young Earth creationist.
Dr. Ross has had a life-long love of Mesozoic macrofauna.
Dr. Ross recently completed a PhD in paleontology at the University of Rhode Island, defended without mention or use of fringe religiously-based theories.
His advisor described his work as impeccable.
Another professor in his department has defended his science as “good. Great science.”
Dr. Ross has taken his PhD to Liberty University, a very conservative southern Christian school, where he teaches geology from a standard (secular) science text.
While a PhD student, Marcus Ross allegedly argued that a creationist approach might be applicable to some geologic events, like the Cambrian explosion. The details of his argument are not discussed.
There is no evidence presented (not even hearsay or evidence produced by torture) that declares Dr. Ross plans to use his new degree to confoundthe masses and achieve world domination.

I say, shoot the fucker.

But before you do, please try this simple test:

1. Get yourself hired as an adjunct to teach intro geology at your local Christian college.
2. Convince the deans there to let you use a standard textbook.
3. Go into the class with a holier-than-thou, smart-ass attitude and the same standard text book that Dr. Ross uses for his class.
4. In the same classroom time, impart a greater appreciation for, and a broader understanding of geology than Dr. Ross is able to do. After all, if we’re gonna lynch this guy, we’d better at least appropriate his faculty position while he’s kicking at the breeze.

I’ve got a six-pack of Boags that says anyone who reads this blog would fail this test. Abysmally.

Of course, the main charge against Dr. Ross is that, despite the complete lack of evidence, he is somehow going to undermine the teaching of evolution in schools. But it seems to me that his career is the best possible justification for the separation of evolution and religion. Consider:

-By keeping his science free of creationist ideas, Dr. Ross has produced professional level research.
-Working in this field for the better part of a decade does not seem to have had an adverse effect on his faith.

So, even devout creationists can benefit from keeping their religion and science distinct, and doing so does not necessarily have a deleterious effect on their religious beliefs.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think young Earth ideas are bizarre. I’m currently paying off my mortgage by determining how many billions of years old various minerals are. To me a young earth hypothesis means an Earth that is 4.530 billion years old instead of 4.567 billion. But if this guy can compartmentalize his beliefs and working hypotheses well enough to do good science, more power to him. Evidently, some folks disagree.

Inquisitor Eugenie Scott from the National Center for Science Education says that grad schools were entitled to reject non-mainstream students, as they “would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.”

I wonder if she says the same thing about the visually impaired? In any case, none of the people who actually advised Dr. Ross have mentioned remedial education, so I think that Ms. Scott is practicing good science, by making statements that are easily falsifiable.

Professor Michael Dini from Texas Tech (where do they find these morons?) is even more disdainful, having previously refused to write letters of recommendation for students who would not renounce communism and drink cool-aid on the stand. He was later quoted as saying that scientists “ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science. That’s what Ph.D. stands for.”

Here’s a bit of scientific philosophy for you, partner:
“Belief” is not a scientifically meaningful measure of confidence.

In fact, from what I’ve seen of professional scientists, getting emotionally attached to a theory- believing, as it were- is a greater threat to scientific productivity than treating science dispassionately. And who could be more dispassionate than a believer in an unscientific religion?