The Truth About PhD Creationists

[Munch]

Although this was released in febuary, I only just came across it now, and found it intresting when you really boil down the facts about creationist physicists, people like Ken Ham.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPyKaH09lpc

What it boils down to, is that in the academic field of science, creationists are failed scientists in the spectrum of the scientific community, while other scientists and physicists work hard to learn and understand the field, these creationist charlatans get the most basic level of what is taught, all simply so they can use that to the lowest common denominator, creationists.   

I just find myself feeling a real sense of rage at this, because of what science means to me. Science is the pursuit of discovery and understanding of the world around us, and even if we don't have the answers, scientific theory leads to searching for ways to open up the truth and make it scientific fact if its doable.

Creationist physicists however are only in it for the profit of selling to the most gullible of patrons, the religious community, all while pretending to stand in an academic field along with actual scientists, despite them being failers in that. After all, all you need to do as a creationist physicist is percent a tiny margin of study to clueless morons, and fill in the massive gaps with 'god dun it', the ultimate expression of the god of the gaps, and they will believe you, and you will make money from it.

Every time I see ken hams lying, pretentious, shit eating grin, I want a fucking satellite to crash down on him. And while it might seem weird getting annoyed over what a creation loser and failed scientist does with other creationist, I just hate thinking that people can get lost to such charlatans, without having a chance to know true science.

[drunkenshoe]

As someone familiar with academic studies, I cannot get how these people can get PHDs in the first place. It's makes no sense. It's only possible if they are paying for it and buy it like the aristocrats buying the key of heaven from Vatican hundreds of years ago. Who are their instructors? Which institues and colleges?

What are their merits? PHD requires original research, what is the definition of original research in creationsim? Or anything related to religious fields?

Also why not just named PHD in theology -at least it's older bullshit- it could be historical research on evaluation of some religious text; let's say maaaay be revealing a new historical religous documents...etc could win them some expert title with a good, tidy analysis -which by the way, still cannot merit for a PHD by any social science standards- if it is not changing something or putting out something new.

Who is giving these people PHD titles?

[trdsf]

Creationist physicists however are only in it for the profit of selling to the most gullible of patrons, the religious community, all while pretending to stand in an academic field along with actual scientists, despite them being failers in that. After all, all you need to do as a creationist physicist is percent a tiny margin of study to clueless morons, and fill in the massive gaps with 'god dun it', the ultimate expression of the god of the gaps, and they will believe you, and you will make money from it.

And creationist physicists are trying to apply the cachet of their degree -- physics -- onto fields in which they do not have their degree -- geology, biology, and depending on the physics they specialized in, cosmology and planetology.

And in any case, falling back on 'goddidit' is the most arrogant statement anyone can make: it says not only "I don't have the imagination to think of a rational explanation" but also "and if I can't do it, neither can anyone else".  As evidence for that interpretation, I refer you to the vehemence with which they reject all concrete evidence to the contrary, all proof that someone else did figure it out where they couldn't.

[drunkenshoe]

But how? This is what I don't get. Does the state recognise the institute these people get their PHD titles? Because there are merits they have to meet and approved LEAGLLY to be recognised as some station that could give a PHD title. There must be a loop somewhere. Or they are just lying out loud and playing to the perception management. I don't get it.

[stromboli]

Blame the U.S. educational system for much of it. There are many universities that give Phd's in what amounts to junk science, and also universities giving degrees in legitimate disciplines that are religiously biased. A good example is right here where I live, in Utah.

You can get degrees from one of several universities and colleges, but all but one of them are heavily Mormon influenced. One reason it took me so long-7 years- to get my degree is because I started out at University of Utah, did most of my courses at Weber State, which is heavily Mormon influenced- and finished up through mostly correspondent courses at U of U because I wanted my degree from what I considered a "legitimate" university. Utah State and Southern Utah U are all Mormonized, Mormon started colleges. U of U is the only university in the state that is independent of the religion academically. Even the so-called state colleges are Mormonized.

[Munch]

This gives some more insight into how these charlatans get their credentials, or how they work around the system with lies and half truths.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

[drunkenshoe]

OK, thanks. The site Munch posted clearly shows this is something beyond the education system of US. May be the system in general.

These people are straight out lying about their credentials or what they actually 'researched' and this is what I was looking for. Because simply there is no other explanation. And I don't even mean because their research is far away from anything scientific as possible, that wasn't my problem, we don't need to go there. Even if they can do it, it is not enough to find some fake institute to buy a PhD to pretend to be scientist or an expert on these subjects. They require a recorded huge academic time -from different univs or institutes, articles and most importantly international and national references in the main stream, fellowships, reviews on their study in the field. Recognition. Also an accepted body of work and branch of traditions came before them to fit their 'study' in which actually makes a study, a PHD, if successful. That's only possible with being generally in the recognised field. What is this? A fucking novel? Well, we can work with a novel actually.

I don't know if I make sense to you.

There must be money in this, marketing; it probably obtains/assists all kinds of benefits and profits for people using it. So they are obtaining whatever it is with obvious deliberate misrepresnetation and fraud. Research doesn't matter at this point, title is a lie. They should be charged. LOL I have got carried away and found myself in a movie court room.  I wonder if it is doable though? Can these people be sued? Do we have any lawyers, preferably American? :p

[doorknob]

Meh

every one knows creationists are not real scientists accept for the religious who are just too lazy to understand science. They truly are just lying their asses off. And there's so much evidence to bury them with there's no way they don't know what they are.

Sadly people who don't understand science and are too lazy to learn about evolution or any other areas of science like my own father, will continue being duped by them.

[Solomon Zorn]

It would be wrong to infer from this list that all creationists have suspicious credentials. In fact, a good number of prominent creationists have legitimate -- even noteworthy -- doctoral degrees in scientific fields. For example, Duane Gish earned a doctorate in biochemistry from Berkeley, Steve Austin earned a doctorate in geology from Pennsylvania State University, and Kurt Wise earned his doctorate in paleontology from Harvard while studying under Stephen Jay Gould. So just because a few well-known creationists failed to earn their graduate degrees the traditional way does not mean that all or even most of them did.

Even if not ALL creationists are lying about their credentials, the ones that aren't faking it, are still starting from their holy book, and using it as theory - does that disqualify their status as scientists? Will they accept the disproving of a divine claim, when their research finds it false?