I think you may have some misconceptions about how academia works. If a person is driven enough, they can get through a terminal degree program with just about any whacked-out idea at just about any university. It’s hard for them to keep shooting you down if you know how to play the game, no matter how much they disagree with you. I think the only thing that keeps most of them at bay is that the average crazy person isn’t that driven.
Michael Behe teaches at Lehigh University, for example. If what Diogenes said surprised you, that should shock you. From what I understand, they more or less legally can’t fire him. They actually put a disclaimer on their biology department’s homepage about him.
Touche, but this is not true of every program. I’ve known folks who were essentially told that their dissertation would NEVER be accepted given their perspective on the topic. One guy ended up flipping burgers; another guy had to find various euphemisms for “national security” because his advisor wouldn’t let him use the term in a dissertation on Tudor-Stuart England.
These are guys with PhD’s. I should clarify that these are guys who still hold to their religious beliefs despite the fact that everything about their discipline contradicts it and they should know better.
There are also Creationsits who hold real credentials in biology (Behe, Demsky). Religion can make people capable of some incredible denial.
It should also be mentioned that these kinds of people, in their professional lives, do not tend to push or pubish these beliefs. They might lecture about earthworm biology or volcanoes, but keep their religious beliefs out of things in order to hold a job. The religious stuff is on their personal time, and while some of them write popular books esposing ther arguments marketed at believers, or may pick up extra lettuce by travelling and lecturing to them, they don’t submit anything for peer review or try to make serious scientific cases to other scientists.
I think there is also some effort for religionists to get these credentials in order to bolster their own authority, and at least try to talk about the science with some real comprehension. From what I’ve read, they don’t so much reject scientific method as attempt to posit “alternative” theories for the evidence which they can attempt to argue as being reconcilable with the Bible. Kind of like how Defense attourneys. They aren’t trying to prove their own hypotheses, just create doubts about the established science.
Well you know, education is just memorizing a set of questions and answers isn’t it? The content of those questions and answers isn’t really important is it? Isn’t it just the grade that’s important? I get the feeling that some of you think there’s more to education than that. But I guess I wouldn’t know, I’ve recently been informed that I know nothing about education, or what I do know is weird and paranoid.
That was education up until 6th grade or so. Or are you being ironic?
The question/answer/memorization model starts fading out in middle school and is basically non-existent after your 2nd year of college. You’re expected to analyze things, conduct research, and form new ideas in higher education.
Sarcastic to be less ambiguous. I am speaking to the bizarre concept of someone who is supposed to show a proficient level of understanding of a scientific subject but employs fallacious scientific claims that deny it. If it were simply a case of someone who says they maintain a religious belief that denies science on an irrational basis I would not find it so problematic. But the **stpauler **cite goes beyond that and claims that their denial has a scientific basis. It does not surprise me that the University of Dumb Island would issue a PhD to such a person, but some of the other institutions do surprise me, even with my low expectations of them.
