Creationist gets Ph.D. in

surferdude

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

yes, i thought this was the kent hovind thread, my bad

Who's Kent Hovind? and why should I care? This has since been cleared up. Thanks for those posting.

A PhD signifies that you have indepth knowledge on a specific subject. It has nothing to do with what kind of person you are. Should we prevent fat people, or smokers from becoming doctors as they obviously have no respect for their own body? Should we require all veterarians be vegans? Where will the open mided, liberal thought police draw the line?

As for the person making the point of being a hypocrite. Isn't this what we demand of our politicians?

gue_barium

El_Kabong wrote:

yes, my point was i said he used the bible to prove his points, this guy,a s far as i know didn't do that, kent hovind did it, so my reply wasn't directed at this guy

ixnay on the mpay.

abook. er, kabong.

chopitdown

Lizard wrote:

Dr. Dini, of Texas Tech, agreed. Scientists “ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science,” he said. “That’s what Ph.D. stands for.”

That's exactly what the PhD process is; proving you understand how to think and how to test hypotheses and putting your work out for scrutiny. He has obviously (since he has earned a PhD) demonstrated that he can do both AND he has faculty approval for his dissertation and has aslo passed other classes in his doctorate work. It would be terrible to not bestow the PhD on him b/c he is a creationist. He has learned how to produce good science.

Here's the quote that stuck out to me:
"Dr. Fastovsky said ... he said. “All I can tell you is he came here and did science that was completely defensible.”

If his science and research was satisfactory to the faculty his personal beliefs don't matter.

Rats of Multa

jlew24asu wrote:

its proven FACT that the world is billions of years old. what a douchebag

hahaaha! this is hilarious because he is simultaneously disprooving himself, regardless of how worthwhile anything he might say may be.

i dont understand how scientists can really be that upset here though, this guy is also simultaneously demonstrating the importance of science and the stupidity of biblical-creationists.

and here i thought i'd heard of everything!

~thanks for posting L!

Obi Once

Dunno it is weird that this guy gets acceptance from the scientific community while his view of the world are based in bs. It's like saying the world is flat. Yet one can do decent research, publish papers and have a different take on something. I don't agree with all my professors philosophies either.

OutOfBreath

chopitdown wrote:

Here's the quote that stuck out to me:
"Dr. Fastovsky said ... he said. “All I can tell you is he came here and did science that was completely defensible.”

If his science and research was satisfactory to the faculty his personal beliefs don't matter.

That is the only acceptable attitude on this issue as I see it. If he had delivered a Ph.D. on "why the earth is 6000 years old", it would be another matter. A Ph.D dissertation stands for itself. The person behind a scientific paper is largely irrelevant. The work speaks for itself. So if a creationist has delivered a scintific ph.d. I truly see no problem. I dont like creationism but that's beside the issue. It can rather be a point against him if he flaunts his ph.d. authority later on, that his degree has nothing to do with creationism, actually quite the opposite.

His paper stands and are accpeted, he has shown he knows what it's about and gotten his degree. There is no oath of allegiance to mainstream scientific opinion in getting a degree.

Peace
Dan