True Ancestor: "Can a student produce intellectually honest work that contradicts deeply held beliefs?" [UPDATED]

That's the question asked in this NY Times article (now in subscription jail) about Marcus Ross, a "young earth creationist" -- oh, and a paleontologist who wrote a dissertation for his doctoral degree in geosciences at the University of Rhode Island; a dissertation that toed the line of current scientific thinking about the age of the Earth, the process of evolution, and other ideas and concepts widely held within the scientific community.

Everyone's in a tizzy because this guy's methodology is impeccable, and his dissertation well researched and reasoned -- but he doesn't believe in the conclusions of his own work.

He may be deluding himself, but so far he's not forcing his delusions on the rest of us. Instead, he's adopting a scientific perspective in producing a scientific treatise on marine reptiles that lived (according to the most current scientific evidence) more than 65 million years ago.

It may be more intellectually honest to post your "I don't believe in God" video on YouTube, but showing that you can fully understand (if not endorse) reasoning and perspective that's diametrically opposed to your own -- that's progress. We seem to be proving that more knowledge of science doesn't necessarily make you more scientific, or less prone to believe what can't be known.

According to the Times article, Ross said "the methodologies and theories of paleontology are one 'paradigm' for studying the past, and Scripture is another." He says all he's doing is "separating the different paradigms."

Perhaps the Internet has increased our propensity for valuing our own ever-shifting opinions over the accumulated work of actual disciplines. I think what this guy is doing is more humble, more careful and more objective than that. It may also be more insidious, but we won't know for awhile.

It's fine if you do or don't believe in God, really. But how much do you actually know about the different paradigms? Most of what I've seen and read (by or endorsed by Dawkins or Harris) seems angrily preoccupied with fundamentalist Christian paradigms of a just God, meddling in the workings of our daily lives, meting out reward to the just and punishment to the wicked. These authors don't seem as concerned about, say, Hinduism, or Tibetan Buddhism, or Animist traditions that feature entire pantheons of small-g gods who may be as dependent upon us, in their way, as we upon them.

Ross has mastered both a major scientific perspective and a major religious perspective. Maybe he has an ulterior motive, I don't know; maybe he'll use his knowledge to try to jam the foot of archaeology into the glass slipper of creationism, or maybe he just wants a tenured position within driving distance of a Baptist church.

But I admire the fact that he's taken the time to fully understand both paradigms. Not so most of these yahoos.

When a scientist, or a religionist, can walk freely back and forth through the adjoining suites of the two disciplines, we all get a little smarter. Doesn't matter which room they're staying in.

But then, that's just my opinion...

UPDATE: Here's a very thoughtful and detailed opposing view.

--T.A.