In using the phrase “the puzzlement in the comments”, I was referring to the commenter s in the New York Times, not here. You may not have read those. They were most universally derisive of Ross and suggested a lot of draconian, if not vengeful, ways to deal with his sort of impertinence – his ability to understand and apply himself to science while not “buying in” to science. -Deny him the degree- (though he did the work). -Wait for his unmasking as a fraud- (a certainty, apparently). -He will get his in the end- (alarmingly like someone itching for a Day of Judgment, though believing to be Over With All That).

Confusion, perhaps, and especially if framed as the confusion of people who are certain they know the answers, period, and cannot possible conceive why others won’t take capital “T” Truth to heart. Coming from people who apparently value free thinking — and I won’t get into parsing definitions here, I am no more an expert on that philosophy than I am on fundamentalism — I find some very alarming opinions.

You may or may not be able to recall a time when religion and modernism coexisted more or less harmoniously in this country, and in which the mainstream voices of either side did not make regular pronouncements about the “threat” one posed to the “other”. What was said privately may have been quite another thing, but certainly things were sanguine enough that, in my case, I received perfectly straightforward instruction in the theory of evolution in my Catholic grade school science class, as well as getting the story of Noah’s Ark in religion class — on the rare occasion Noah was pertinent, since religious instruction at the time much favored the New Testament. No one experienced psychological damage from the contradiction, to my knowledge. Generally, you emerged with a far more nuanced idea of the world, with those of us more technically-minded ones tending to regard biblical tales no less “real” despite the details being so obviously metaphoric. And fundamentalist religions were marginalized, a lower class phenomena not to taken seriously let alone reckoned with.

Somehow that protocol broke down over the past 40 odd years, and the boundaries have become stark and the territory in between downright hostile. It would be easy to blame the rise of fundamentalism only, but I doubt they are the only source of discord. There are chips aplenty on the shoulders of opposing parties, and the motivations seem less to do with the opposing philosophies of theology and science than with cultural discord and the psychology of pain. Both the most literal believers, feeling betrayed by changes in their culture, and the other outcasts — sexual, ethnic, intellectual –- have gained through change some degree of influence, each feeling just as betrayed, betrayal turning to anger. In each the anger has morphed into bullying and bravado as each find their kindred and gather in protective mental enclaves.

To blame religion (or science) is a rationalization, but it is not rational. “If only my parents had not been Evangelicals, they would have accepted me for who I am…” “If only I had known God then, I’d never have gotten in trouble, used drugs, got mixed up with the bad crowd.” Whatever, in the end it is all very human, and therefore, unlikely to end with the victory of one philosophy over the other.

People are going find alienation, pain, injury, and they are going to invoke some core belief – theirs, or those of others, to explain it all, in order to preserve themselves emotionally. “If only my parents hadn’t been Socialists/Capitalists/Vegetarians. If only…” You fill in the blank, please.

Religion and science are not the sources of our discord. They are merely proxies, to be used, abused, to be shoved in front of ourselves as shields. To be grabbed onto by authorities, politicians, demagogues, and hucksters, to manipulate us. As all wants, desires, beliefs, and reasons are subject to manipulation.

I loved science until I got one teacher after another who could not teach and gave no indication of being able to communicate in clear sentences. My middle school, most of my high school, and my undergraduate instructors in science were lousy.

During those years of lousy teaching, I managed to parrot back the right answers without understanding some of them or violently disagreeing with them. Just like the geology PhD we are reading about.

It was only when I went took graduate level genetics and molecular biology that I found a treasure trove of marvelous professors.

I think there is a real problem with math and science teaching, especially in high schools. Unequipped teachers are assigned to courses that they either don’t understand or can’t adequately communicate. In the end, the students suffer, and many of them don’t even realize they have been short changed.

So, suppose he goes to work for an oil company, or some mining industry. Which paradigm will he use to find what his company asks? Why not the other?

sort of hope he does. It’s not all that fun going through that crisis if you actually believe (I had an easy time of it because I never felt that strongly about it), but I think in the end he’ll be happier for it. It’s always better when you’re not lying to yourself.

“Not all that fun” is quite an understatement! When you’ve based your entire existence on certain rigid beliefs, and suddenly the rug’s pulled out from under you, your very future is threatened. It’s a pretty awful transition time for most fundamentalists – as you say, much easier for less rigidly raised believers.

But in the long run – yes, it’s much better not to lie to yourself, and in the end most people are happier with the honesty. It’s such a personal thing, though, you never know who’ll choose to really examine life to the fullest and who will keep their head firmly in the sand.

If Ross were required to do so, he would not be able to say: “I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates.”

Scientists don’t really “do” science by claiming to have proved hypotheses that they sincerely believe are false. Real scientists work to disprove such hypotheses. Or else they reevaluate their intellectual positions based on their findings. Ross doesn’t care about his own findings; this is a peculiar attitude for any scientist.

But off course, Ross is no scientist. He’s a charlatan who learned how to vomit back and manipulate information that was useful to his agenda, but in which he had no “faith.” His advanced degree should have been in regurgitation, not science. And the faculty’s appropriate response on reading his dissertation should have been to throw up.