You have to ask yourself, does this make any sense at all? Ross, a Bible thumper works for his scientific geology PhD? Something is not right here. Look at the professors in the photo to the right -"David E. Fastovsky, left, and Jon C. Boothroyd, professors at the University of Rhode Island, defend the science done by Marcus R. Ross." Their expression is absolutely, "Something is not right here."
But Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.
For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”
Whoa there! I've studied some science and I've studied some religion. These are not just alternative paradigms. These are completely distinct social, cultural and intellectual systems. Rabbis and priests and ministers are not separated from scientists by "paradigms". The live, work and think in different worlds and in different ways with wildly incomparable systems of rules.
Paleontology and religion do not intersect in any substantive way. True, both ask about and explain the age of the universe. But the religious stories are naive, contradictory, lacking provenance, arbitrary and fanciful. Science derives from study, classification and collegial verification of material evidence.
How can a university give a student a PhD when the student thinks that another totally separate realm of learning and knowledge is part of his discipline? Can a university certify an engineer who thinks that artistic renderings of bridges are just another paradigm of calculated blueprints and plans? Woe is he who drives over that engineer's spans.
As my teacher and mentor the Rav used to say about matters that he found not even worthy of discussion, "It's absurd!"
Paleontology and religion do not intersect in any substantive way. True, both ask about and explain the age of the universe. But the religious stories are naive, contradictory, lacking provenance, arbitrary and fanciful. Science derives from study, classification and collegial verification of material evidence.
How can a university give a student a PhD when the student thinks that another totally separate realm of learning and knowledge is part of his discipline? Can a university certify an engineer who thinks that artistic renderings of bridges are just another paradigm of calculated blueprints and plans? Woe is he who drives over that engineer's spans.
As my teacher and mentor the Rav used to say about matters that he found not even worthy of discussion, "It's absurd!"
1 comment:
"But the religious stories are naive, contradictory, lacking provenance, arbitrary and fanciful."
"As my teacher and mentor the Rav used to say about matters that he found not even worthy of discussion, "It's absurd!"
If the Rav heard you say what you said about the religious stories, what adjective do you think he would say to you?
Post a Comment