Jesus vs. The Dinosaurs

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin

Dr. Ross, a Ph.D candidate at the University of Rhode Island, is seeking a terminal degree in Paleontology but is a young earth creationist. Essentially, he has dedicated his life to the study of creatures that are millions of years old and yet does not believe that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old due to a literal interpretation of the Bible. According to his colleagues and advisors, he does excellent work with a perfectly scientific, secular approach. He claims to be able to conduct his research in a scietifically sound manner because he uses "a different paradigm" when dealing with science as opposed to religion. Though I find his ability to separate his faith from his scientific work laudable, it begs the question, why would he devote his life to the study of something that so flagrantly contradicts his deeply-held relgious vales?

In his "An Athiest's Call to Arms" speech (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html), Richard Dawkins mentions that a very strikingly small number of scientists (especially biological scientists) are theists. In the speech as well as in his best-selling book "The Blind Watchmaker", he claims that this is so because it is nearly impossible to believe that the world has been designed when you examine the overwhelming evidence in favor of Darwinism. Clearly Dr. Ross must have been exposed to Darwinism in order to be a Paleontologist but has clearly chosen to ignore it except as it pertains to his work.

As a microbiology major and avid fan of the scientific method, I am inclined to believe that one cannot truly use separate "paradigms" as a scientist. Something is either true or untrue. A phenomenon either occurs or does not uccur. Evidence either supports a claim or it does not. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that Dr. Ross is likely to join the creationist academics who use their Ph.Ds from legitimate academic institutions to tout their absurd viewpoints in order to mislead people. Infact, Dr. Ross has already written and spoken on scientific topics using a creationist bias. Had he not done this, I would be more inclined to think of him as a legitimate truly seeking to expand our knowledge of the world.

This scenario poses an interesting dilemma: Should academic institutions bar students from obtaining degrees because they have reasonable suspicion that they would use their knowledge for dubious purposes?
I do not think that academic institutions should deny a student a degree simply because of his or her religious beliefs. However, doesn't an institution also have the responsibility to keep their respective fields of knowledge unsullied by mumbo-jumbo? For example, would it be irresponsible for a university to grant a Ph.D in biology to a student who plans to use his or her knowledge to re-introduce eugenics?

Here is my proposed solution: Medical schools require their students to take the Hippocratic Oath before they can receive their degrees. They must swear to only use their knowledge to help a patient to the best of their ability and to never intentionally do harm. I believe that a similar oath should be administered to Ph.D candidates in all fields. They should swear to only use their knowledge for the betterment of mankind and not use it to intentionally deceive. I think that such a oath would also prevent scientists from working on projects that have enormous potential to be a detriment to mankind such as the atom bomb or (as previously mentioned) eugenics.

Responsible science has brought so much good to the world in the form of life-saving drugs and expanded understanding of the world around us. I think that there would be far fewer abuses of scientific knowledge if it were reserved for those with noble purposes.

~~L