On Monday, the NY Times published a piece titled “Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules” about Marcus R. Ross who successfully defended his Ph.D. dissertation in paleontology notwithstanding his belief in “early earth creationism.” He wrote about events which occurred (according to him) 65 million years ago but simultaneously asserts that the universe is at most 10,000 years old. The article addresses interesting ethical issues like whether a secular academic institution can refuse to admit a student or to accept his work on the basis of religious belief. And can such an institution justify such a refusal on the basis of the student’s intended use of his accreditation? But the article ignores another ethical issue: one which concerns neither the student nor the institution. Is it ethical that a religious group so abuse a person’s mind that he feels compelled to live in permanent violation of the law of non–contradiction?
There is one certainty in this debate—at least one of these positions must be wrong. That conclusion comes to us courtesy of the previously mentioned law of non–contradiction. A person who chooses to adopt both positions simultaneously is not a mere curiousity. He undermines the fundamental purpose of an academic institution—to promote the emergence of a true understanding of the universe. By embracing both poles in this binary, Dr. Ross demonstrates that he has no commitment to such a project. A scientist surveys the hypotheses, examines the supporting evidence, then makes a choice. Both Ross and his alma mater have failed to fulfill their obligation to choose. Effectively, they stand like Pilate, washing their hands and asking peevishly: “What is truth?”
One could always object that this isn’t really a debate about poles of a binary. Science and belief are distinct discourses. Science addresses hypotheses. Belief addresses creeds. Trying to evaluate a person’s worldview while throwing both discourses into the mix is a lot like wondering if Kurt Cobain was a better ball player than Mickey Mantle. Maybe not, but so what? Then again, such an objection would imply that I could likewise assert that Andromeda is sprinkled with faerie dust. Yes, I can make such an assertion. And no, you can’t prove me wrong. But again, so what? My assertions have no connection to reality. Neither do Marcus R. Ross’s, and that, my friends, is why Ross can lay no claim to legitimacy either as an academic or as a believer. Science seeks the truth. As such, it properly acts in the service of belief — not the belief of speculation, nor the belief of faerie–dust fancy, but the belief that treats us as fundamentally spiritual beings.
Dr. Ross does a disservice. Not to science. As his alma mater states, his science in impeccable. Instead, he does a disservice to people who take matters of believing seriously. It’s bad enough that we have to dissociate ourselves from the “early earth creationist” nitwits, but it really makes it difficult to dodge the ridicule when a man who knows better—and has the credentials to prove it—willfully ignores what he himself acknowledges as the truth. Then, our detractors begin to suspect that we are not people of faith, but members of a cult who have been subject to psychological coercion. How else to account for willful blindness?