Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by Professor Kent.
@ Dr. Seheult:
How can anyone declare that this statement shows no evidence for a derangement of the peer review process:
â€œIâ€™ll be emailing the journal to tell them Iâ€™m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,â€
â€œI think we should stop considering â€˜Climate Researchâ€™ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.â€
Um…I’ve published in a fair number of journals and I have had issues with editors. My colleaques and I have discussed those issues by email and agreed not to submit articles to certain journals because their editors made inappropriate decisions. If you seriously believe we were engaged in a “derangement of the peer review process,” I think you are seriously deranging academic freedom and the choices that authors make–often based on shared information from other authors–in where to publish their research. Get a grip.
Professor Kent Also Commented
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Bob, I’m not sure what your point is. If you’re trying to convince us that evolutionism is wrong because some of its adherents have perpetrated fraud, you would need to show that creationism is right because none of its adherents would tell anything but the truth.
Carl Baugh, a noted creationist, was one of the most ingenious when it came to hoaxes: http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/carl_baugh.htm
“Evolutionists” are not the only ones good at making up stories. Here is a link to varying “creation” stories among many different indigenous peoples; I assume you would insist that the majority of these are more imagined than real:
Here is a lengthy and well-referenced list of creationist claims, many of which are demonstrably bogus:
Of course, Kent Hovind, one of the best known and most respected creationists, ended up in prison because of what he was peddling and his refusal to go about it in a Christ-like manner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
And last but not least, the SDA church has its own embarassment with Ron Wyatt, the biblical archeologist whose outlandish claims have been dismissed by virtually all, including most of the Church’s theologicans (there are soooo many websites detailing his abundant frauds that I won’t bother to provide a link).
Whereas you have argued:
But then .. there is always â€œthe Bibleâ€ that would have informed â€œthe average manâ€ in all of these cases that he was being lied to in one form or another.
One could equally argue:
But then .. there is always â€œscienceâ€ that would have informed â€œthe average manâ€ in all of these cases that he was being lied to in one form or another.
I believe in young earth creationism just as you do, but I don’t think we need to put down evolutionists or the misdeeds of a few to shore up our beliefs.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Roger Seheult wrote
Please show me where Sean Pitman claimed to be an â€œexpertâ€ in proteins.
Sean Pitman wrote
Where did Dryden point out my ignorance of protein structure and function? I am, after all, a pathologist with a subspecialty in hematopathology â€“ a field of medicine that depends quite heavily on at least some understanding of protein structure and function.
I like protein a whole lot.
Protein’s yummy cold or hot.
Protein’s good at every meal,
Protein power helps you heal.
Protein in meat, cheese, or fish
Protein goes with every dish.
Protein this and protein that,
Protein won’t ever
make you fat.
Protein helps make you strong
I want protein All Day Long!!
Personally, I’ll take Jessla’s knowledge and perspective. Much more palatable.
The â€œpeer review processâ€ is a minefield fraught with agendas, financial reward, and bias that is far from true science..
Roger, please stop deranging the peer review process. How dare you.
Recent Comments by Professor Kent
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.