He's preaching evidence against the idea ever since a student submitted his paper about S. America and Africa "fitting". I had no idea that that was a belief.
He's my Oceanography instructor. The whole thing just seems so ridiculous.
Does he believe that plate tectonics isn't necessary for Earth's geography to form the way it has? What flaws does he find with plate tectonics?
i could try to ask him, when a student started flinging evidence, he replied "you need to understand that all of that is utter bullshit".
I'd really be interested in why he believes what he does, and with such conviction. If you ask him, could you post his reply here?
If I had to hazard a guess it would be young earth creationism. A 6000 year old earth is not compatible with plate techtonics and it is one of the scientific theories that has to go. I have meet people who think it's wrong for this reason (though certainly not a oceanography professor, my god the sea is full of evidence for it)
Bingo. Apparently this is his first year teaching Oceanography after years of teaching marine biology. He told me about it being an affront to his beliefs. He got a biology degree. when I asked him if hes ever had to teach evolution, he told me that he's "fortunate that he hasn't been required to". I met the dean during my lunch break to ask why he's still teaching with those beliefs. He tells me that he was specifically chosen to teach for students that have a strong faith in creationism (I guess after enough letters from angered parents, he would have to answer their demands?). I realized on my way home that i should have asked why i was in that class. My parents believe in evolution, so that makes it really bizarre. About Ring Of Fire, Mid Atlantic Ridge, and the Hawaii islands, he says that they are unscientific and a creation of god.
I hope I'm not sticking my nose in this, but you could try another line of questioning with him (assuming he is subscribing the "the appearance of age", or Last Tuesdayism. In that specific case, you could ask why plate tectonics are necessarily wrong. If the world were created five minutes ago, would it be wrong to say that trees are formed from seeds? You can deduce how something came into being without necessarily invalidating his creationist beliefs. At least, maybe. I'm no philosopher and I doubt any line of questioning like this would end well.