George Evans: I have never found University libraries closed to …

Comment on Bringing the Real World to Genesis: Why Evolution is an Idea that Won’t Die—IV [A Review] by Professor Kent.

George Evans: I have never found University libraries closed to the public.

Um…what do you know about journal availability and access at libraries?

Professor Kent Also Commented

Bringing the Real World to Genesis: Why Evolution is an Idea that Won’t Die—IV [A Review]

George Evans:
@Professor Kent: Ten years ago when I was active at talk.origins I used the Loma Linda University and the University of California Riverside libraries.

I have visited the UCR library many times, but haven’t done so in the last decade or more because of the outstanding digtal access I now have. I’m told that Loma Linda’s access, both hard copy and digital, pales in comparison to UCR and what I have access to.

In times past, Sean clearly lacked access to recent material, as he nearly always quoted internet-based stories–which leaves much to be desired. And this highlights and handful of ENORMOUS problems Christians have in trying to base their beliefs on evidence:

1 – They lack access to original material.

2 – They lack formal training to understand and interpret it.

3 – The material out there is immense and an honest soul can claim to have good understanding of only a minute fraction of it.

Consequently, for the vast majority of Christians who strive to base their beliefs on science rather than the fideism of scripture, they can only rely on what people they choose to believe are experts have to say on it. In other words, they’re basing their beliefs on human wisdom rather than scripture. Hurrah for apologetics!


Bringing the Real World to Genesis: Why Evolution is an Idea that Won’t Die—IV [A Review]

A servant: Professor Kent, it appears that you have no objective response to Dr. Pitman’s presentation of research that counteracts Long’s position. No review of the paper Pitman present, no discussion of why it truly reflects the existing regulatory pathways of hemoglobin synthesis.

You’re right. I don’t. I have no formal training in the discipline, and won’t pretend I have the expertise of someone who does.

All I noted was the strange coincidence that the very small percentage of scientific papers that conform to Sean Pitman’s views are reliable and lack flaws, in sharp contrast to the hundreds of thousands of papers that reject his views and are hopelessly flawed. His track record for assessing science must be unmatched.

You say this is an ad hominen attack. If you know of any papers that reject Sean’s views, yet offer scientifically correct conclusions, then please share. Conversely, if you know of scientific papers that he finds correct but are scientifically flawed, then please share. I will gladly retract my assertion–my simple and humble observation–if you can show me wrong.


Bringing the Real World to Genesis: Why Evolution is an Idea that Won’t Die—IV [A Review]

Sean Pitman: I do have university access…

Congratulations! But I seriously doubt you actually spend much time physically going to a library and looking up original papers. If you have digital access, which is the only efficient approach to stay abreast of issues today, I presume it either cost you a mighty sum (highly unlikely) or some good Christian soul “loaned” you their own university access, the ethics of which I won’t raise. If the latter, perhaps hereafter you’ll provide links to original reports and not the internet stories you’ve relied on in the past.

I hope the library has a substantial sampling of journals. Most academic institutions have limited subscriptions and online access. Some of us, however, are blessed with much.


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.