Shane, I’m not disputing your experience and that some disrespectful …

Comment on NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community by Professor Kent.

Shane, I’m not disputing your experience and that some disrespectful treatment was doled out in years past.

What I am trying to say is that things have now changed, and I wish you folks would welcome that news rather than continue to deny it and maintain the ad hominen attacks not just on the biology faculty but on virtually all levels of Church administration.

Can you please use your influence to stop the completely unnecessary accusations made by certain individuals here who feel they can make such statements without any foundation in fact?

Professor Kent Also Commented

NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
And here is one more public post by someone who apparently has not appreciated the change:

As my time as a Biology major from 2007 and four years later till now, I can say that how creationism and evolution are taught has fundamentally changed.

During freshman year, my 2nd quarter freshman Biology class was prefaced (By Dr. McCloskey) with the statement that what he was showing us was what the world believed. It does not undermine creationism etc etc. That’s pretty much all we got as far as hearing about creationism.

Now, 3 years later, they dedicate a much larger amount of time towards explaining creationism/holding lectures for creationism.

In my opinion, if people really did feel the need for hearing about creationism, there are a myriad of classes which focus on the old testament/genesis offered at LSU by the religion department.

Now we are constantly reminded that this is “not fact, but it is supported by years and years of research etc. etc.” It’s very demeaning in a way, and I feel as if we, the students, are being treated like babies, just because some people took offense towards evolution being taught. Oh well, it will only be the students below my class reaping the “benefits” of this updated curriculum.

Where is your evidence, Ron, that nothing has changed? I’ve asked you for this several times and you still cannot produce. You are making mean-spirited charges you cannot back up.


NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
Here is another public response from a former student who attended during an era when theistic evolution was supposedly taught as fact:

Don’t know about this past year, but when I was at LSU in the 90’s I didn’t get the feeling of belittling the short week mythos, although I probably wasn’t paying attention, since it has always been my understanding that the Bible is not, and cannot honestly be, interpreted literally.


NAD President, Education Director Dialog with La Sierra Campus Community
Here is publicly posted description from a La Sierra student who responded to a question whether LSU biology faculty have taught theistic evolution as fact this past year, or have belittled a literal creation week a relatively short time (thousands of years) ago:

My experience has been that none of my professors teach any theories as fact. They teach that all theories are interpretations of observations and attempts to understand things. These understandings continually change. Some make better sense than others given the understandings at the moment. All acknowledge that the Bible says very little about any mechanisms of how things are or how they came to be. That isn’t the domain of the Bible and if we were to put all the scientific explanations from the Bible it would be a very small booklet indeed. That’s not the fault of the Bible because it never was meant to be a science textbook. It’s poor science to attempt to construe the evidence to fit a predetermined theory, whether that is of a creationist-theology kind, a theistic-evolution kind or a materialist-evolutionary kind. Do the science and do the theology. If and when they don’t align, that is a separate discussion to be had. But neither are served well by trying to force one to fit the other. Clear thinking it important for science and for theology. Adherence to a set form of belief in science or theology because that is what has been held in the past is not good science or good theology. I’ve learned and developed skills in healthy thinking through my studies and for that I am deeply grateful. Thank you La Sierra!”


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.