Ron Stone M.D.: Other than being “engaged” in smokescreening the issue and …

Comment on A little-known history about Belief 6 by Professor Kent.

Ron Stone M.D.: Other than being “engaged” in smokescreening the issue and trying to boondoggle the whole process, what actually are these groups doing?!

Here are the facts, most all of which have been presented here:

* One professor was asked to retire.

* The other professors got pressure to cool it.

* The department created a new freshman course that didn’t go so well the first time, but went better the next time around.

* The administration, the board, the SDA accreditating agency all told the department to address and continue addressing the issue.

* A survey was undertaken to better understand the situation. The results were announced (and promptly criticized by all sides, of course).

* An apology from LSU was issued.

* A group of biologists from various SDA universities recently met with the LSU biologists to discuss how to better address the issues. I’m told the meeting went very well.

* Any disrespectful teaching stopped nearly two years ago when the issue became big news, hit the local papers, went ballistic on the internet, and got you calling everyone working to address the issue “spineless.”

* I have made a few friends who have intimate inside knowledge they have shared. I was upset with the situation myself, but have been pleased to learn of the improvement. I have grown closer to God and my Church in this process (in spite of the way folks are treated here).

The faculty themselves, the university administrators, the board members, the local conference administrators, the union administrators, the NAD education department, the general conference leadership–all of these entities have addressed the issue. There’s a reason you are not reading headlines in USA TODAY at this point about the glaring defiance of LSU: because the issue has been addressed.

You label everything as smokescreening. Bob Ryan labels everything as spin. None of us has been privy to the inner workings of these various groups, and all of them have been wise enough to stay away from this website, where anyone is subject to being labelled a “liar.” As much as you might like it to be, this website is not the official Church organization by which all personnel hiring and firing and discipline issues are cleared.

This issue of teaching theistic evolution has been pounded into the earth and beat to death. Why aren’t you happy? You got the outcome you wanted! You should be celebrating! You give the impression that you really don’t want change to happen at all, perhaps because you enjoy so much declaring leaders to be “spineless.”

Some people move on. Will you? Will Bob Ryan? Will David Read? Will Educate Truth? Will Sean Pitman? Will Shane Hilde? I think the answer is obvious.

Professor Kent Also Commented

A little-known history about Belief 6

Eddie: The important thing is to make sure the courses in which it is covered more extensively are taught by professors who fairly present both views–and not by the professors who refuse to present the SDA view. I think that is what is being worked out.

Totally agreed. As Eddie remarked, well-placed secondary sources (which may differ from his) confirm this has been work in progress at LSU. The department faculty, the university administration, and the Church administrators are all engaged.


A little-known history about Belief 6
Eddie, I’m getting very similar facts from my end of things. I don’t know why it actually angers readers that something is being done and change is happening.


A little-known history about Belief 6
Sorry…my posts are at DR. GERATY CLARIFIES HIS “CHALLENGE” TO LITERAL 6-DAY CREATIONISM.


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.