@Professor Kent: I think you are missing the point here …

Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by Roger Seheult.

@Professor Kent:

I think you are missing the point here professor. For me to even think of saying such comments would mean that I must wield an enormous amount of power to actually change the publishing habit of a major journal just by “emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” or “encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

I’m not a high powered professor like you but I would be quite satisfied to be able to publish in the first jounral that I submit to let alone change their behavior!

You said:

“I’ve 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.

Get a grip?

The mere fact that you would conspire not to submit your article for review to a journal for an action as small as an editors behavior creates a publication bias at the very least. If it is truly a conspiracy amongst yourselves as you claim – then the reaches of this is far wider.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think you have done anything wrong – just don’t promote the “peer review process” as some extension of the pure and scientific method of finding truth.

The “peer review process” is a minefield fraught with agendas, financial reward, and bias that is far from true science. And sometimes it is simply the result of “someone done me wrong pettiness” that is all to common in a field that is supposed to be sterile of emotions.

Roger Seheult Also Commented

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation

“Thanks for telling me you meant literal years. I’m not sure who the joke’s on, but this did make me laugh. If you like, you can add to my mathematical example that I have been working on topology for years, it is my hobby, I’ve talked about and read about it and am writing a book about it. Also, I tell you that I know more about topology than you know about Nantes. Should you believe I have disproved the Poincaré conjecture?”

No, [edit] but I’d probably pretend and at least consider that you knew what you were talking about.

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation

Roger, please stop deranging the peer review process. How dare you.  (Quote)

You’re kidding right! I’m find it difficult to imagine someone who has published as much as you have to make a statement like that without jest.

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Great, again, show me where Sean Pitman claimed to be an expert. He claims to have at least “some understanding of protein structure.” That is very different from an expert.

Recent Comments by Roger Seheult

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Ervin Taylor:

I literally have not logged on to this website in years. It looks like the same arguments are going back and forth which means that if you haven’t been able to solve them by now, you aren’t going to convence each other of your points. What is really amazing to me and anyone intersted in the topic, however, is the tone of the comments, which usually reveal the maturity of the writer especially if they include absolutes:

“vast majority of scientifically-informed Adventists will thank Dr.Kent ”

“this misnamed web site”

“Dr. Kent has done a masterful job”

These are usually tip-offs to a lot. Also, it makes me wonder that if Sean Pitman is so ill-informed, and he operates on such a mis-leading web site, why does the good Dr. Taylor waste his time coming to this website, reading the material and then commenting on it? In fact I can bet that Dr. Taylor has spent more time on this web site then I have in the last year – and that speaks volumes about what Dr. Taylor really thinks of this website – perhaps the good Dr. Kent as well.

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
Again, the question is begged: Why would they work so hard to change the university rather than just leave and go where universities already believe the way you do? Dare I say that there lies a larger conspiracy that transcends LSU and that may be going on at your local SDA instituation? Again, why the push over a generation to change a whole university and to denude it of its fundamentals?

Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Most of the blogs that are critical of this site aren’t interested in what this site is really out to do. They simply want to demonize it ergo Alinsky’s rule of indetify, demonize, and marginalize. Hence their cherry picking from the comments for their own purposes.

Thanks for the recap though.

LSU propaganda
Lydian Belknap:

This is only my opinion and none of anyone on this site.

You said: “The thing that concerns me a great deal at this point is the idea that there is no scientific information to support “Intelligent Design.” At least that is the statement I’ve heard numerous times on this site”

If you want to learn more I think you would really be interested in this man and his videos if you have not already. I get no money for referring him to you. He got me interested in this topic and energized me to do so.

Watch his life story and his videos noted below:


Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
It is Academic that is being tautological

Sean using the argument that ID papers are not allowed in by the peer review process because of the conclusions that they draw and Academic is trying to prove him wrong by citing evidence upheld by the very peer review process.

Academic said:
“And I don’t believe that there’s a single paper that refutes the possibility. ”

You are right, academic, there is not one but three I could find in a brief search: