Marcus Ross is hardly the first YEC to get a degree in geology. Steven Austin of the ICR got his geology degree decades ago. Their web site shows:

B.S., University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S., San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

I also read once, long ago, that there are a lot of YEC geologists in the oil industry. When you're hunting oil, it doesn't matter how old a rock formation is, just whether it's impermiable to oil or not.
Dave Mullenix | 02.14.07 - 4:55 am | #

Hi David,

I think you may have more in common with PZ, when it comes to matters like this, than is apparent.

Suppose, just hypothetically, that you are interviewing an applicant for a graduate program and you ask him why he wants to go to grad school (this is a perfectly reasonable question, in fact a necessary one). He states, matter of factly, that he has a job waiting for him at an institute that will be doing human cloning, and that he needs a Ph.D. to take the job. Suppose, moreover, that you are opposed to human cloning. The question – the applicant is sterling (1600 GREs, lots of practical experience including publications and presentations, etc.), but you are morally and ethically opposed to what he intends to do with his training and the degree that you will confer. Do you accept him? Do you have a moral or ethical obligation to accept him? Indeed, ought you not be morally obliged to deny this applicant, solely on these grounds?

Ross’ situation is similar, if perhaps not so morally charged (an aside - why would that be, if one thinks he will harm Christianity?) – he intends to use his degree to harm Christianity, or at the very least (if one such as PZ is of the opinion that “harm to Christianity” is an non-issue) teach students what are in effect lies of fact and substance, and that his former advisors were liars. Now, for sure, PZ doesn’t seem to be arguing as I do here, but, if society expects scientists and professors to act according to some code of ethics and morality, shouldn’t these considerations be important? Should educators turn a totally blind eye to the intentions and motives of their charges?
Art | 02.14.07 - 9:52 am | #

Then candidates need to become adept at lying.

Really, if my committee asks me a question unrelated to my scientific research, I will try to decide what they want to hear and answer accordingly (or give the "safe" answer). I'm not going to risk the years of agony I put into a physics Ph.D. over telling the truth on a subject which the committee cannot possibly have independent verification of (what I am currently thinking or what I will do in the future).

Which is why PZ's idea (as far as I understand it) is both silly and impractical; it can only encourage dishonesty, of the sort which cannot be verified, so the net effect will be the same but adds a layer of mistrust and paranoia between advisors and advisees.

*Please note that I am explicitly not advocating scientific fraud, but a polite way of handling questions that aren't anybody's business.
Alexander Scott | 02.14.07 - 10:11 am | #

Art,

The only point I’d draw a line is if I knew somebody planned to use their degree for illegal purposes, such as building a bomb. Other than that, I’d do my job—even if I viewed what they were going to do was immoral (but legal). I would file it away under the “render unto Caesar” category. It’s not my job, as a Christian, to prevent people from sinning. It’s my job to spread the gospel. Yes, the education I provide him might be used for immoral purposes, but Jesus faced the same issue with the Roman and even the temple tax, but he paid—thereby funding, in part, his own murder. Of all the usual, non ad absurdum scenarios, someone like Ross would disturb me the most if, indeed, he will go on to teach his Liberty students than mainstream science is somehow “against” Christianity. Even so, I’d treat him like any other student, and I’d take him as my own grad student if he was qualified.
heddle | Homepage | 02.14.07 - 12:21 pm | #