RBH

Three I know are Baugh, Hovind, and Gentry. Baugh and Hovind both have diploma mill Ph.D.s. Robert Gentry's Ph.D. is an honorary from a Seventh Day Adventist college, Columbia Union College.

IN the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Henry Morris, Emeritus Director, has a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering and Duane Gish in biochemistry. Current Director John Morris (Henry's son) has a Ph.D. in some engineering discipline associated with petroleum engineering or geology.

Of the main intelligent design people, Dembski has Ph.D.s in math and philosophy, Wells a Ph.D. in cell biology, Paul Nelson in philosophy, Meyer in history/philosophy of science, and Behe in biochemistry.

The only creationist I know of who has a directly relevant degree is Kurt Wise, a young earth creationist who got his degree under Gould. Wise has written that regardless of the evidence, he would still be a YEC.

A vanishinlgy small proportion of the "new" intelligent design people actually do science -- Minnich and Behe are the only exceptions I can think of offhand, and they don't do "ID" research as such. Wells has never published a first-author research paper, Dembski has published only one or two peer reviewed papers in stats a decade or more ago, none to do with ID and none at all in information theory, though he's been called the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory" by one of his sycophants, Robert Koon, a philosopher.

The old-time YEC creationists are more likely to have wholly irrelevant or diploma mill degrees; the new "ID theorists" tend mostly to have real but mostly irrelevant degrees.

RBH

buckshot23

What exactly are the "relevant" degrees?

Y.B

Ph.Ds in biology or paleontology, I believe.

Martin B

Yeah, well he frequently points this out. As I said, what I remember is that he points out something that is actually quite correct: most of these guys have irrelevant degrees. They are as qualified to speak about evolution as I am in speaking on their respective topics.

There's audio of Dawkins on the Charlie Rose Show from his U.S. 'tour' this fall. I don't remember for sure, but I think he mentions this fact. Hope the link helps.

buckshot23

No he doesn't mention anything like that on the show. Thanks for the link and it was interesting none the less. Thank goodness Dawkins doesn't have any relevant degrees in theology. I can still believe in God.

edit:
Actually trying to find exactly what his degree is in. Wiki doesn't seem right. here
What are the MA and DPhil degrees in?

RBH

Zoology, IIRC. At least that's what he taught for nearly 30 years.

RBH

buckshot23

Surprisingly hard to find the information.

electrolyte

Well, perhaps I'm biased... but considering the fact that biological processes (within organisms, as opposed to evolutionary mechanisms) are explained best by molecular chemistry, and especially with the slew of arguments concerning chemical reactions and thermodynamics, let us not too hastily dismiss a biochemistry degree, eh?
(Then again, there's Behe...)

RBH

Biochemists get almost no education in evolutionary biology and its allied disciplines (paleontology, genetics, evo-devo, etc.) in graduate school. Here, for example, are the Ph.D. course requirements for UCLA's biochemistry Ph.D. program. Very little evolution-relevant stuff there. The two genetics courses are the closest, and they're not required but are in two different groups from which students choose courses. So a UCLA biochem Ph.D. can get the degree with zero evolution-relevant coursework.

RBH

Djugashvillain

A select few have PhDs from known degree mills, such as Hovind. Most others, however, have legitimate degrees in fields completely or tenuously related to evolutionary biology: PhDs in philosophy, engineering, mathematics, English literature--all sorts of fields, but very few in zoology or evolutionary biology or other directly related fields. Nonetheless, to the creationist or ID crowd, a PhD is a PhD, and, regardless of what it's in, the person who has it is allowed to speak with authority on whatever field they choose. I have met my share of idiot PhDs, and have learned to not put too much trust in the title. At best, it means that they are an enlightened, reasonable, and dedicated individual, who has a scholarly knowledge of one particular field and a good, non-scholarly understanding of many others (usually by osmosis); at worst, it means they are adept at a very specific field of enquiry and are unable to apply the same critical thinking and reason to others. Every IDer I have read about falls into the latter category.

And thankyou for the Dawkin's article, RBH. It is bizarre, and unfathomable to me, how a man so highly educated can ignore all evidence contrary to his religious belief. Dawkin's was right in describing him as pathetic, not in a derogatory manner, but rather a Dickensian one.