Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Professor Kent.
BobRyan: Now that Kent claims he is no longer interested in “playing games†we look forward to a direct answer.
I never argue for the either-or fallacy that you keep proposing. You insist that we either use reason or faith but never both. The 3SG 90-91 argues that reason will not allow us to believe in both evolutionism and the Bible.
Kent – How are you doing with that?
A DIRECT ANSWER TO WHAT? I have stated DOZENS OF TIMES that I believe that God created life in six literal days within a short-term chronology. I’ll say it again: I believe that God created life in six literal days within a short-term chronology. I’ll say it again: I believe that God created life in six literal days within a short-term chronology. It doesn’t matter how many times I say it, Bob, because you still want to portray me as a theistic evolutionist, because you treat me–your fellow brother in Christ–with utter contempt and hatred. I think you hate me because:
1. I called you out on your ignorance of science and the way you abuse others with it.
2. I called you out on the way you uncharitably taunt, ridicule, and harrass anyone who disagrees with you. Roughly half your posts have one point only, and that is to taunt me. You’re obsessed with me!
3. I oppose Educate Truth because I don’t think it is the best approach to bring about change at LSU or in the denomination as a whole. In fact, I think cyberbullying by those of your ilk is one of the most repulsive examples of Christianity I have witnessed in my lifetime.
As for the “either-or fallacy” that you insist I keep proposing, only a total, complete, stupid idiot believes that one has 100% faith or 100% evidence and nothing in between. I’ve never defended such a ludicrously stupid position, and I think you are well aware of this. Of course we must use both faith AND evidence; none of us can escape either.
As for your assertion that 3SG 90-91 argues that reason will not allow us to believe in both evolutionism and the Bible, you are completely delusional if you believe that millions of Christians who have accepted theistic evolution– Christians who have accepted it because they use their reason (often placing it ahead of faith)–have all rejected the Bible. It’s a stupid conclusion based on sheer ignorance if that’s what you believe. 3SG may argue this in your opinion, but I don’t think Ellen White would declare the faith of every single theistic evolutionist as invalid; she was not that arrogant or rude. You have elevated yourself to Godhood if you believe that YOU are qualified to tell any Church-going, Bible-thumping thesitic evolutionist (and there are MILLIONS) that they no longer believe in the Bible.
I don’t accept YEC and a literal creation week because of 3SG or because Ellen White says we should. I accept it on the basis of God’s word in scripture–Sola Scriptura.
What’s your next game? Do you wanna talk about Jesus Christ or your fanciful ideas of Professor Kent’s beliefs and character?
PK
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
Professor Kent Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Let’s not forget that sin started in heaven long before mankind came into existence. So far as we know, death came into existence as a consequence of mankind’s sin.
Professor Kent
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Lydian, I greatly appreciate your perspective, and could not agree more. And I love the message you ended with: “Even so, come Lord Jesus!” Amen to that.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
By the way, Bob, who made the claim that “Creationists should not be ALLOWED to ask questions of an evolutionist in an interview format.” Who are you quoting? Your own mind?
Recent Comments by Professor Kent
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: Science isn’t about “cold hard facts.” Science is about interpreting the “facts” as best as one can given limited background experiences and information. Such interpretations can be wrong and when shown to be wrong, the honest will in fact change to follow where the “weight of evidence” seems to be leading.
Much of science is based on highly technical data that few other than those who generate it can understand. For most questions, science yields data insufficient to support a single interpretation. And much of science leads to contradictory interpretations. Honest individuals will admit that they have a limited understanding of the science, and base their opinions on an extremely limited subset of information which they happen to find compelling whether or not the overall body of science backs it up.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The process of detecting artefacts as true artefacts is a real science based on prior experience, experimentation, and testing with the potential of future falsification. Oh, and I do happen to own a bona fide polished granite cube.
Not from Mars. Finding the cube on Mars is the basis of your cubical caricature of science, not some artefact under your roof.
Sean Pitman:
Professor Kent: If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.The question is not if one will catch a fish, but if one will recognize a fish as a fish if one ever did catch a fish. That’s the scientific question here. And, yet again, the clear answer to this question is – Yes.
I think I’m going to spend the afternoon with my favorite scientist–my 8-year-old nephew. We’re going to go fishing at Lake Elsinore. He wants to know if we might catch a shark there. Brilliant scientist, that lad. He already grasps the importance of potentially falsifiable empirical evidence. I’m doubtful we’ll catch a fish, but I think he’ll recognize a fish if we do catch one.
While fishing, we’ll be scanning the skies to catch a glimpse of archaeopteryx flying by. He believes they might exist, and why not? Like the SETI scientist, he’s doing science to find the elusive evidence.
He scratched himself with a fish hook the other day and asked whether he was going to bleed. A few moments later, some blood emerged from the scratched. Talk about potentilly falsifiable data derived from a brilliant experiment. I’m telling you, the kid’s a brilliant scientist.
What’s really cool about science is that he doesn’t have to publish his observations (or lack thereof) to be doing very meaningful science. He doesn’t even need formal training or a brilliant mind. Did I mention he’s the only autistic scientist I’ve ever met?
As most everyone here knows, I have a poor understanding of science. But I’m pretty sure this nephew of mine will never lecture me or Pauluc on what constitutes science. He’s the most humble, polite, and soft-spoken scientist I’ve ever met.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: I don’t think you understand the science or rational arguments behind the detection of an artefact as a true artefact. In fact, I don’t think you understand the basis of science in general.
I’m amused by this response. I don’t think you understand the limits of a philosophical argument based on a hypothetical situation, which is all that your convoluted cube story comprises, and nothing more. Whether the artefact is an artefact is immaterial to an argument that is philosophical and does not even consider an actual, bona fide artefact.
Sean Pitman: You argue that such conclusions aren’t “scientific”. If true, you’ve just removed forensic science, anthropology, history in general, and even SETI science from the realm of true fields of scientific study and investigation.
Forensic science, anthropology, and history in general all assume that humans exist and are responsible for the phenomenon examined. Authorities in these disciplines can devise hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they observe and can test them.
SETI assumes there might be non-human life elsewhere in the universe and is nothing more than an expensive fishing expedition. If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.
The search for a granite cube on Mars is nothing more than an exercise in hypotheticals. Call it science if you insist; I don’t see how it is different than a child waiting breathlessly all night beside the fireplace hoping to find Santa coming down the chimney.
I guess the number of science colleagues I acknowledge needs to grow exponentially. I apologize to those I have failed to recognize before as scientists.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The observation alone, of the granite cube on an alien planet, informs us that the creator of the cube was intelligent on at least the human level of intelligence – that’s it. You are correct that this observation, alone, would not inform us as to the identity or anything else about the creator beyond the fact that the creator of this particular granite cube was intelligent and deliberate in the creation of the cube.
Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one. Thus, your hypothetical argument offers no support for either evolutionism or creationism, and cannot distinguish between them.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I have taken much abuse by pointing out the simple fact that SDAs have specific interpretations of origins that originate from scripture and cannot be supported by science (if science is “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”). The beliefs include:
o fiat creation by voice command from a supernatural being
o all major life forms created in a 6-day period
o original creation of major life forms approximately 6,000 years ago
None of these can be falsified by experimental evidence, and therefore are accepted on faith.
Sean Pitman’s responses to this are predictably all over the place. They include:
“[This] is a request for absolute demonstration. That’s not what science does.” [totally agreed; science can’t examine these beliefs]
“The Biblical account of origins can in fact be supported by strong empirical evidence.” [not any of these three major interpretations of Genesis 1]
“Does real science require leaps of faith? Absolutely!”
I think it’s fair to say from Pitman’s perspective that faith derived from science is laudable, whereas faith derived from scripture–God’s word–is useless.
Don’t fret, Dr. Pitman. I won’t lure you into further pointless discussion. While I am greatly amused by all of this nonsense and deliberation (hardly angry, as you often suggest) for a small handful of largely disinterested readers, I am finished. I won’t be responding to any further remarks or questions.
