Comment on WASC Team Recommends Formal Notice of Concern Regarding LSU by Professor Kent.
BobRyan: I don’t blame WASC as if they are acting in a vacuum. They are clearly being manipulated by evolutionist sources at LSU.
Clearly. WASC has a long established history of being manipulated, and they would never suspect the clever machinations of the exceedingly brilliant LSU evolutionists.
Professor Kent Also Commented
BobRyan: sister organizations to WASC are the way to go if they insist on interfering with SDA education to the point of destroying it
There are indeed some sister agencies. The only other options for regional accreditation would be:
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits institutions in NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, and DC, plus Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and schools for American children in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
New England Association of Schools and Colleges, which accredits institutions in the six New England states.
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits institutions in AR, AZ, CO, IO, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, OK, NM, SD, WI, WV, and WY.
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, which accredits institutions in AK, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, and WA.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which accredits institutions in VA, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, AL, TN, and TX.
All we have to do is convince one of these to take on a single California university because, as we all now know, WASC is seeking to destroy SDA education. Maybe you can begin the letter-writing campaign? Let’s get this done!
BobRyan: the Adventist denomination created LSU in the first place – with the intent that it be free from the corrupting influence of non-SDA groups such as WASC.
Without regional accreditation, which only WASC and its sister accrediting bodies can offer, no graduates from SDA colleges could enter graduate schools or professional schools, including schools of medicine. Only boneheads continue to suggest we should not have accredited universities.
BobRyan: Otherwise – why divert limited SDA funds to building LSU – when we could just hire more missionaries and pastors “instead” with that money?
Because SDA education has been critical for maintaining a vibrant church with its unique culture and for pairing young SDAs with marriage partners. Neglect these young people and you’ll strangle the Church.
BobRyan: If WASC is going to define a soft word like “interference” as “AAA authority and oversight in making sure that all professors hired in its institutions are teachingh values and principles consistent with the mission and message of the Seventh-day Adventist church” then we have a problem.
“If” is very telling. It signals “what I have to say next is nothing but inane speculation.”
David Read: I think you and Richard are right to the extent that if La Sierra, its administration, its Board, and the Adventist Church had presented a united front, there’s no way that WASC would dare to try to micro-manage curricula or teaching.
What kind of logic is this? There’s no way that WASC would dare try to micro-manage curricula or teaching, so your conditional statement about a “united front” is gobbledygook. Why don’t you take the time to read up what accreditation and WASC standards are all about? You simply don’t know what you are writing about.
David Read: Unfortunately, that wasn’t and isn’t the situation. La Sierra has been teaching straight Darwinism for decades and the church has finally begun to complain.
Unsubstantiated malicious donkey dung.
David Read: there’s no way WASC would be demanding changes to the composition of the Board of Trustees if they had not received a strong signal from Wisbey that he was favorable to these changes.
Sure, David; you contrived this from your imagination, as you have zero access to the thinking process of anyone that is actually involved with the issue.
David Read: Clearly, Wisbey is using WASC to loosen church control over La Sierra.
Clearly, you are perpetuating another of many libelous statements regarding a person whose motivation you have no knowledge whatsoever. Just fanatical speculation.
David Read: secular accrediting bodies may be able to effectively keep the sponsoring denomination from re-asserting control on the ground of “institutional autonomy.”
You have quite the imagination. Can’t wait to see your next post.
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.