David, There are creationist websites (including this one) which assert that …

Comment on LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations by Professor Kent.


There are creationist websites (including this one) which assert that the “general lack” of bioturbation in the fossil record is a major problem for mainstream geologists and paleontologists.

There is a book published in 2004, however, that provides a nice compilation of articles on the topic of bioturbation (The Application of Ichnology to Palaeoenvironmental and Stratigraphic Analysis, by D. McIlroy, editor). As one author put it, “The use of trace fossils for palaeoenvironemtnal analysis is commonplace, and can be applied to ALL PARTS of the geological column, including extinction-recovery intervals (emphasis supplied).” The book provides detailed examinations of bioturbation in many layers of the geologic column and at many localities. Yet, the authors point out that our understanding of bioturbation in the fossil record remains rudimentary. As the same author quoted above noted, “We have only just begun to scratch the surface.” I just now did a literature search at ISI Web of Science and found 200 articles with the keywords “bioturbation, fossil.” Seems to be a lot of scientists finding a lot of material to study in the fossil record.

Are you comfortable taking a stand on the bioturbaton argument? In your judgment, if we use the argument of a “general lack” of bioturbation in the fossil record as evidence in support of a recent creation, and we eventually learn that there is a lot more bioturbation present than we formerly believed, and that there are bona fide reasons why significant bioturbation might be absent under certain ecological conditions associated with preservation events, should we then abandon our faith? In other words, should we allow science to dictate what we believe?

And, as a reminder, I claim no expertise in paleobiology.

Until the whole world hears

Professor Kent Also Commented

LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations

BobRyan: I am all for what “can be observed”.

No, you’re all for that which “cannot be observed:” a literal creation that took place 6,000+ years ago. I’m all for that as well.

You and Sean need to stop pretending you believe because you can observe incontrovertible “evidence” for it. You accept on faith that a human can be manufactured from dust and that a herd of sheep can appear instantaneously on a verdent mountain pasture. You accept on faith that God can do in six days what evolution cannot do in 600 million years.

LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations
Nearly two weeks have transpired, Sean, since I asked whether the molecular methods used by epidemiologists to study disease are any more reliable than the exact same methods used by systematists to examine evolutionary relationships–whether within a single species (as is the case for many studies) or across multiple species or taxonomic groups. Are you having trouble getting a grip on this issue? Surely you have considerable expertise (perhaps even training) in phylogenetics and phylodynamics.

Since science is your ultimate source of authority, as opposed to scripture, I’d like to better understand your basis for disputing the methods and conclusions of molecular systematists. I believe you reject them for one simple reason: their conclusions go against your a priori beliefs, and therefore their methods must be flawed.

LSU memorandum confirms Educate Truth’s allegations

Sean Pitman: Such evidence calls into serious question the validity of these just-so stories of mainstream scientists when it comes to their explanation of the nested hierarchical patterns that they find in various genomes.

Sean, you’ve made it clear in the past, and again here, that you despise phylogeographic and taxonomic methodology based on sequence data. Perhaps you could take a look at the following paper on the spread of HIV using the same approach many systematists use. Do you think the story told by sequence data in this case is a “just-so” story as well?


Gray, R. R., et al. 2009. Spatial phylodynamics of HIV-1 epidemic emergence in east Africa. AIDS 23(14):F9–F17. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32832faf61.

And here, Sean, is another study based on sequence data that examines whether a viral component to lymphomagenesis exists. Again, the same general methodology is used by other scientists whose conclusions you are quick to dismiss. Is this another “just so” story?


Salemi M, et al. 2009. Distinct Patterns of HIV-1 Evolution within Metastatic Tissues in Patients with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. PLoS ONE 4(12): e8153. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008153

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.