A little while ago, we had a report of creationist graduating from Harvard and going on to use his degree for evangelism. How sweet, I know…but surely he wouldn’t admit to simply getting his degree for window dressing, would he?

Why, yes he would! he’s very proud of the purity of his creationist heritage and pulling off the acquisition of a Ph.D. from Harvard.

He went straight to Harvard Medical School, which he said “sounded like it would be useful for credentials and evangelism.”

“I’m a second generation creationist, you might say,” he said. He explained how he saw that “salvation was inherent in creation science” and that it could be used as a tool for evangelism, another passion of his.

With a promising and lucrative career in medical research open before him, Jeanson said he underwent a career shift at Harvard. “I asked myself, ‘How can I use and abuse my training to influence eternity, rather than for temporary gain?'” He considered mission work or attending seminary. He decided, instead, to seek employment at ICR, rather than continuing his research in Boston.

Harvard, you’ve been used.

This peculiar little email is nothing special, but is actually rather representative. It’s interesting because most atheists will read it one way, where I suspect he actually means it another way.

Professor Myers,

My name is Jack Heidman and I am an F15 pilot and commercial airline pilot for American Airlines. I am not a biologist. I was too busy flirting with my cute lab partner to pay attention in high school biology class (by the way, I went to Wayzata High – I bet you know where that is).

I would seriously like your opinion on another stupid creationist question I have. I know that you know your origins view is correct and I am wrong. I also know that you know us creationists (especially young earth creationists) are incredibly misinformed and/or stupid. I am not trying to be sarcastic. You are obviously a very educated individual and I am quite certain you are much more intelligent than I am.

My stupid creationist question is simple: What if you’re wrong? Pascal once said “Are you willing to wager eternity?” Is it possible that where you go when you die might be as important as where you came from (in your case – primordial soup)? Don’t you think your eternity might be worth a little consideration? I’ve seen your picture on the internet and I notice a few grey hairs in your beard. Unfortunately I’m getting a few myself which reminds me every morning when I shave to consider my post-death living quarters (you might want to ask yourself…smoking or non?)

The walls of your Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around you. You know it. You’ve known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people!

Sir, please think about my stupid creationist question. I eagerly await your reply.

Respectfully,

Lt Col Jack Heidman
F15 Pilot and…
A Colossally Stupid Bible Believing Creationist

Most of you are probably thinking that he was being extremely sarcastic, in spite of his disavowal — he starts off by telling me how smart I am and how stupid he is, and winds up asserting that I’m wrong about everything, and he knows it…and then he emphasizes how stupid he is. If you read it aloud, you’d probably adopt a mocking, sneering tone.

However, he probably is entirely sincere and not at all sarcastic (emphasis on “probably” — he could be trying to be obnoxious, but I’ve talked to enough creationists to suspect that he isn’t.) There’s a key to understanding his intent.

This is classic American anti-intellectualism. He honestly believes that intelligence is not a virtue, so in a weird twist of values, he is venting a bit by accusing me of being intelligent, and bragging about himself when he says he is stupid. Heidman is a prideful man with a huge ego; it’s why he starts off with the announcement that he is an accomplished pilot. That isn’t a contradiction with his anti-intellectualism, either: learning to fly an F15 is not an exercise of the brain to him, but a God-given talent. He didn’t believe in wasting time learning in high school, when he could instead make time with the girls. He’d probably also deny being egotistical, because it’s OK to gloat over one’s abilities if they are a gift from God.

He’s also entirely correct. He is Colossally Stupid, because he doesn’t think. He’s happy to toss around Pascal’s Wager even though it is a pathetic argument, because it feels good to his gut, and he’s already blindly confident that his particular faith is entirely true. You can tell him that he is stupid, and he will be unfazed, and will probably take considerable pride in the label — people who think, think, think get in the way of unreasoning acceptance of his blithe confidence. We could easily rip his ‘argument’ to shreds — it doesn’t address any of the issues of origins, it’s little more than a fallacious argument from consequence, and it is non-specific and can be used equally well to defend any random religious belief, from the Amish to Zoroastrianism — but that doesn’t matter. He’d smirk happily through any dissection, because he didn’t use his brain to come up with it, anyway.

It’s sad. There are a lot of people who believe this way, on feelings and gut impressions and simple, stupid confidence in what they already “know”, where “knowing” in their case is nothing but unquestioning acceptance of what they’ve been told.

Be aware. This attitude is more common than you can imagine.

When you tie a university to a religious ideology, you create stresses that show that the modern search for knowledge is the antithesis of religious dogma. I keep telling people that science and religion are in opposition, and here’s a perfect example: La Sierra University is a Seventh Day Adventist college. SDAs are fundamentalists and literalists (although, isn’t it strange how different literalist sects all seem to come up with different…ahem…interpretations of the Bible?) who as a point of doctrine believe in a young earth and seven day creation. La Sierra has a biology department, as well as teaching other science disciplines.

Let that sink in. Science departments. Six thousand year old earth.

Does not compute. Error. Abort, retry, fail?

How do they do that? Well, a recent controversy has exposed what goes on there, and as it turns out…they teach pretty good mainstream science. From that story, the faculty in their biology department seem to know what they are doing, and they teach that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and they go over the evidence for it in considerable detail. The professor who teaches one of the courses seems to be no-nonsense and on the ball.

Bradley says he’s felt no pressure to change anything about his course, and says bluntly that he doesn’t plan to turn his class into a theological seminar, or to present evolutionary theory only to then dismantle it for students. While he’s fine with helping students work through struggles of faith, Bradley says he won’t undercut decades of peer reviewed scientific research in the interest of religious consistency.

“I am not OK with getting up in a science course and saying most science is bullshit,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Seventh Day Advent church and the administrators of the college have a different agenda in mind. They want the scientific evidence taught to the students so they can oppose it, and the whole mission of the college is to eventually lead them back into the worship of dogma and superstition — they are plainly going to undermine the teaching of Bradley and get the students to believe that most science is bullshit.

By June 19, the president of the worldwide church had written a letter affirming the church’s belief in a “literal, recent, six-day creation” and that “the Flood was global in nature.” Jay Paulsen, the church’s president, went on to say that church-sponsored colleges and universities should teach students about evolution, but mindfully steer them back toward the church’s contrary view.

“As part of that exercise [in teaching] you will also expose them to elements and concepts of evolution. That is understood,” he wrote. “As your pastor, however, I appeal to you that when you take your students out on the journey, you bring them safely back home before the day is over. And their home must always be in the world of faith. You owe it to the students, you owe it to God, you owe it to their parents, you owe it to the church, and you owe it to yourself as a believer to safely guide them through difficult moments on their journey.”

Oh, and by the way, you cannot get tenure at La Sierra unless you are a member of the Seventh Day Adventist church. The mind boggles. I know this kind of restriction is fairly common at fundie colleges, but it is such an imposition of ideology on the faculty — it turns academic freedom into a joke.

One thing I cannot understand is how Gary Bradley can stomach investing so much of his career in such a place…but he says he is a practicing Adventist.

This exposure of the slimy underbelly of a religious institution came to light as a consequence of an angry student with a sense of entitlement (I’ve run into a few of those — we have them even at secular universities). He took one of Bradley’s courses which taught the real scientific evidence for the age of the earth, and was expected to understand it and be able to explain it in a five page term paper. He couldn’t. In fact, his paper is more concerned with presenting a superficial discussion of a few dating methods and then bringing up creationist objections to them, contrary to the instructions he was given.

You can read Carlos Cerna’s paper online. It’s not very good; it’s 13 pages long, but the treatment is incredibly shallow, it has only 5 references, all of which are used to weakly bolster contrarian claims, and simply regurgitates (with skeptical caveats) what he was told in class as representations of standard scientific opinion. For that, he got an incredibly generous C. I would have wobbled between outright flunking the kid or giving him a pity D for being able to type up sentences that are mostly grammatically correct.

You can also read the post-grading exchanges between the student and professor. He’s “flabbergasted” that he only got a C. Yeah, I know those students — the ones who think the grade they should get is the one they want, not the one they earned. Bradley’s comments are actually very cogent and helpful; he explains what he expected, and that the included apologetics are inappropriate. Here’s Bradley’s summary; the student was following standard creationist tactics.

As I said, this paper is unacceptable. When I reluctantly agreed that you could insert paragraphs [single paragraphs!] taking issue with the mainstream data I fully expected you to do a good job with that mainstream data. Instead you have largely ignored it and generated yet another creation apologetic piece that “mines quotes” and ignores volumes of data. You can and must do better than this.

It’s a valid criticism. I don’t quite know why an unacceptable paper was given a C, but I know grade inflation is rampant everywhere.

Meanwhile, the Seventh Day Adventists are freaking out, and protesting that kids are actually exposed to good science in the biology program at “their” university, which they think ought to be teaching only the dogma of their religion. If you ask me, their kids look to be getting a far better education than they deserve.

WARNING TO BIOLOGY PROGRAMS EVERYWHERE: The student, Carlos Cerna, has announced his intention to get a Ph.D. in molecular biology. If you take him on, be aware that he’s going to need a lot of remedial instruction, that he has an attitude, and that he probably just wants a degree from your institution so he can use it to peddle creationism to the ignorant. Don’t let him slip through your program without thoroughly grilling him on the basics of biology, or he’s going to bring some shame on your program.