The title is probably misleading, but it was the best I could come up with. I have noticed that in many books by creationists, promoting their views, great emphasis is given to their academic qualifications. They will be identified on the cover not simply as Jim Jones, but Jim Jones, PhD. On the back flap the brief resume emphasises their degrees. While qualifications may be mentioned in popular science books these seem far more to emphasise what research the author has done, not the letters they acquired along the way. Am I simply being selective in what I see and how I interpret it? Has any one else noticed this, or think the reverse is actually true? Just curious.
There are many areas of study in which one can get a PhD. These can range from any of the sciences, to math, to philosophy, to languages, to literature, to theology, to engineering, etc. Each will be a rigorous path of study, that will separate the men from the boys, within that area of specialization. Since each area can be quite different and often not related, each can have a unique POV on subjects that cross and overlap many disciplines. Evolution is one topic that crosses many boundaries of study. For example, the biologists will not be overly concerned about geology, when it discusses evolution. It will fixate on DNA. However the POV of the geologists is part of the topic, since life is often dependent on local geology. No one area of study has it all, but rather the truth is distributed. Creationism is part of the topic, since this area of study talks about oldest version of evolutionary theory on record. Thousands of years before modern science, people were already pondering and debating how life appeared. They were the PhD's of their time with the best thinking of the day. This is why some take these ancient accounts literally. The modern PhD's go to great trouble to make sure the data, within these oldest records, is well preserved and not doctored by time. This has the advantage of maintaining the integrity of the originals from 6000 years old. Others like myself look at this data as fossils and artifacts of the earliest modern human mind. The time frame is when civilization finally sticks, stops aborting and finally moves forward in a continuous way. It is useful to have sound original data when attempting to infer the evolution of the human psyche at the change from natural instinct, into modern human conscious, when a higher level of willpower and choice seem to appear. From this one can infer how the personality firmware of the brain, that is behind human nature, evolved. This is an important part of evolution on earth. It is not easily addressed by biology alone. It is not just chemicals, but when thoughts and attitudes begin to evolve that would shape nature and the earth into the image of man. Global warming, if you believe, is not due to DNA, but the mind. This mind will impact all of nature and alter the course of evolution. Yet this is left out of the story because the story is bio-centric and does not embrace all the related POV that overlap.
All well and good, but it does not address in anyway the point I was making in my OP. Do you think that creationists overemphasise their possession of higher degrees in order to inspire confidence in their pronouncements?
No I am sure your observation is right, though I think possibly "argument from authority" is putting it a bit strongly. What they seek to achieve is a false impression of parity of esteem between science on the one hand and their silly ideas on the other. This all fits with "teaching the controversy", which I understand has been the recent strategy, i.e. fostering the idea that "evolutionism"and "creationism" are equally valid theories with equal levels of support and that there is a raging controversy as to which one is right. The target audience they hope to convince is their congregations in the rural US Bible Belt who are not the best educated, scientifically and their elected representatives, who , ahem , are often not either. Spraying a few PhDs around helps, even though these are mostly in engineering or veterinary medicine rather than the most relevant disciplines (geology, palaeontology, biology, etc.)
Don't expect wellwisher to address any actual topic being discussed: he just uses whatever vaguely tangential avenue he can find to mention something he thinks he knows about. As for your OP - I think the appeal to authority is there but is somewhat more subtle than an outright claim of "I'm right because I have a PhD"... and is more just part of their blanket of authority that they try to instil in their works, the claim to the PhD along with the pseud0-scientific babble etc.
Yes, to Sarkus and exchemist, my "argument from authority" was a shorthand way of describing a rather amorphous aim that I think the two of you have captured. I still feel uncomfortable with my provisional conclusion that I am seeing something real. I need to do something quantitative to establish whether there is something there or not.
Life evolved in water. Water defines the nano-environment in which life evolved, and therefore water has a connection to the natural selection process associated with the molecules of life. This can be demonstrated by replacing water with any other solvent that is postulated to allow life. The result is life stops and the organics become inanimate. If fact, the DNA is screwed and very few if any enzymes will even work. The authority of biologists, when it comes to evolution, does not address this fundamental connection to water that allows life only in water. Beyond water, it is all speculation that lacks any reality based proof. A narrow range of POV's pretend to have all the answers using casino math. Evolution requires a wide range of disciplines including physical chemistry and physics who can deal with water. This is why you need to include the POV of all the disciplines that touch the subject or else you are selling swamp land to speculators. Creation is about one aspect of evolution; modern human consciousness (spirit and not matter). Humans, especially beginning with civilization, have had an impact on evolution, by altering the potentials in the environment and via artificial selection This is where the mind of the new modern man made selection decisions, in instincts, animal and plants that can cooperate or contradict nature. This choice also allows humans to stack the POV deck so the solution can come out in the way a narrow group of experts want it to be.
I think that conventional science often places its emphasis on institutional affiliation. The Ph.D. degree isn't emphasized, since most scientists typically to have them. The doctorate doesn't really differentiate hierarchically between scientists. Landing a highly competitive position in a prestigious research institution does. Creation 'science' doesn't really have prestigious scientific institutions to affiliate with. So that's out. And lots of the people who write about creation 'science' aren't scientists at all, they are preachers. So people go with what they have, emphasizing their scientific educations, if they have them.
This topic is about use of authority by Creationists such as PhD, to state an opinion. I originally answered this by saying evolution touches many areas of science, as well as many other areas of study including history. Geology is part of evolution even though this subject is about rocks, which are not alive. One needs to include all the POV that touch the subject, to get it right. I then gave an example, how water is critically important to life, and that water is the only solvent even proven to allow life to appear. This is a POV that expresses the degree of water's contribution is not high enough in the discussion. The rest of the solvents that are assumed could support life, are pure speculation that have no hard proof. This does not prevent this fantasy science's POV from being included in the discussion of evolution. Not all POV have to be real to be included. If we go back to Creationism, they wish to contribute, since they were the original model for evolution dating back 6000 years. The Creationists with PhD show they have academic credentials, so their POV is by an expert, even if the bias of atheism prefers to censor them, but will still allow solvent fantasy science. They solvent scientists will flash a PhD too and this gets them in the door. Even astronomy has a POV, with some theories having alien seeding of life on earth. These are allowed to the party because this POV touches evolution but not the other way around with any solid proof. This is even more removed, but is allowed. What I see is more like a party of teens that invited anyone and everyone except a few people that the snobs don't like as a way to single them out as undesirable.
As James requested, please post on-topic. If you want to start a thread on your favorite topic, do so in an appropriate thread.
Religion craves the legitimacy of science, even if they have no clue about how to come by it. It is possible, but not by conferring degrees on themselves, and not by insisting that science become more like religion along the lines of "the infallible word of science", to accompany their "inspired and infallible word of G-d". Each time a religious text is translated, it loses some of its original meaning, and the passage of time takes away most of whatever little real meaning is left. Even the Torah from which most modern Abrahmic religious text is taken, was heavily influenced by Greek culture and the polytheistic approach to religion that accompanied it. Other texts were translated to Greek to Roman to a third language. Newton knew this, and in secret wrote against the "Holy Trinity" mistranslation of Judaism into Christianity. This is likely the reason he never actually preached at Trinity college, a duty required of his colleagues. Newton was asked to perform the calculation to determine the exact age of the world for the benefit of the writings of the New Testament. He never rendered a calculation for that, for whatever reason. The calculation performed instead by Bishop James Ussher is a textbook case of how not to do math, but nonetheless became the canon of the faith of young Earth creationists the world over. Religious leaders are ordained according to whatever standards exist in religious faith. Scholars, including both scholars in religion and science receive degrees in accordance with their scholarship. This arrangement should not be changed or confused by inappropriate accreditation. Morality that was much less like a carrot vs. a stick would be a start to legitimizing religion. Combine that with the admission that if you were not saved in the aeons before you were born, then you won't be saved in the aeons after you depart, no matter what you do, and eliminate fairy tales about an afterlife, and religion might be something everyone could take seriously. Be moral NOW, in THIS life. Start with "love thy neighbor" and the Golden Rule. But don't stop there. End war. Forever. Forget about virgins or eternal bliss in the afterlife. It ain't happening. I hope that doesn't sound authoritarian, but it is informed. Nice thread, Ophiolite.
It's clear that human activities (which are directed by the mind) are having an impact on the climate. Nonetheless, global warming would be taking place anyway, just a tiny bit slower. The planet has been experiencing a cycle of ice ages, which end with all water in liquid or vapor form (thus raising sea levels), for billions of years. Obviously, Homo sapiens has played no part in the cycle, except a very minor walk-on role in the last few decades. I attended a debate between a creationist and a real scientist back in the early 1980s when religion began making an unexpected comeback in the USA. The creationist did not overemphasis his education. What he did do was communicate better than the scientist--as I have often complained, most scientists are really crappy communicators, especially with laymen. But the tactics he used that were patently dishonorable were to pick and choose fossils that appeared to support his position, and to cite as "peer review" undergraduate theses from discredited church-supported universities such as the now-defunct Ambassador College. There is no reason to believe that the kind of life that exists on earth is the only kind that exists. We cannot discount the possibility that non-water-based life exists elsewhere. Probably because he knew that he didn't have enough data to perform the calculation. Duh?
