Comment on Report on LSU constituency meeting by David Read.
It isn’t unusual for a scientist to wait many years before publishing an article or monograph about a major discovery or a substantial piece of research. In the mean time, we know enough about Dr. Chadwick’s research to know that it is first rate. He uses GPS to record the exact position of each fossil unearthed, so that a 3D map of the site can be constructed. This will obviously prove indispensible in trying to intrepet the taphonomic processes that created the site.
In addition, Dr. Chadwick curates a museum with a cutting-edge online component, in which he catalogs, names, and describes each fossil, and renders several of them in 3D. I encourage everyone to browse the online museum and manipulate the 3D renderings: http://fossil.swau.edu/ In addition to the main research site, there is also a kid-friendly site that talks about the dinosaurs found in the upper Lance Formation: http://dinosaur.swau.edu/
Clearly, the online museum and the annual reports that Dr. Chadwick has prepared show that his work is careful paleontological work of the highest scientific standard. I have not discussed it with Dr. Chadwick, but I imagine that he has put off writing the definitive monograph because there are several quarry sites and several of them keep growing. He wants to get a firm picture of the stratigraphy of the entire site, and this is difficult because there are no reliable marker layers going through the whole site. When there is something definitive to report, Dr. Chadwick will prepare and publish an article. In the mean time, he continues to lecture at meetings apprising other geologists and paleontologists of the ongoing work. To denigrate his work as a “hobby” is mean-spirited and unfair.
David Read Also Commented
Report on LSU constituency meeting
Geanna, did you see the 2006 article in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology (which is peer reviewed), co-authored with Spencer?
Chadwick has published several papers in secular, peer reviewed journals, as have many other Adventist scientists with a biblical view of earth history:
http://creationwiki.org/Creation_in_secular_journal_(geology).
There are many Ph.D. level scientists who are not Darwinists, including Kurt Wise, who earned a Ph.D. in paleontology from Harvard under Stephen Jay Gould. The most recently minted creationist paleontology Ph.D. is Marcus Ross, whose professor-advisors were fully apprised of the fact that he was a creationist. The lie that everyone who knows and understands the data is a Darwinist or a Lyellian is no less false for being frequently repeated.
The whining about peer review is particularly tiresome in light of the story of Stephen Meyer’s article in the peer-reviewed “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.” http://www.discovery.org/a/2177.
The editor of that journal, Richard Sternberg, had his career ruined just for allowing a paper that presented ID theory to be published. I don’t think many other scientists want to throw away their careers for giving creationist or design-oriented interpretations a hearing in a peer-reviewed journal. So even though creationist scientists sometimes published in peer reviewed journals, papers with openly and explicitly creationists interpretations would most likely never see the light of day.
Report on LSU constituency meeting
One of the new board members, Alvin Kwiram, was a founding member of Spectrum and spent his academic career teaching at Harvard and the University of Washington. See here:
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2010/05/24/la_sierra_university_reports_its_constituency_meeting.
He wrote a 1993 article in Spectrum entitled “Adventists and the Good Earth” in which he warned about global warming and advocated some interesting theological changes: “…maybe it is time to modify our image of father/God by adding the mother/God dimension.”
http://www.spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive21-25/22-5kwiram.pdf.
I’ll go out on a limb and guess that he will not be reliable vote for reining in the Darwinists.
Recent Comments by David Read
The Reptile King
Poor Larry Geraty! He can’t understand why anyone would think him sympathetic to theistic evolution. Well, for starters, he wrote this for Spectrum last year:
“Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.”
“Fundamental Belief No. 6 uses Biblical language to which we can all agree; once you start interpreting it according to anyone’s preference you begin to cut out members who have a different interpretation. I wholeheartedly affirm Scripture, but NOT the extra-Biblical interpretation of the Michigan Conference.”
So the traditional Adventist interpretation of Genesis is an “extra-Biblical interpretation” put forward by “the fundamentalist wing” of the SDA Church? What are people supposed to think about Larry Geraty’s views?
It is no mystery how LaSierra got in the condition it is in.
The Reptile King
Professor Kent says:
“I don’t do ‘orgins science.’ Not a single publication on the topic. I study contemporary biology. Plenty of publications.”
So, if you did science that related to origins, you would do it pursuant to the biblical paradigm, that is pursuant to the assumption that Genesis 1-11 is true history, correct?
The Reptile King
Well, Jeff, would it work better for you if we just closed the biology and religion departments? I’m open to that as a possible solution.
The Reptile King
Larry Geraty really did a job on LaSierra. Personally I think it is way gone, compromised beyond hope. The SDA Church should just cut its ties to LaSierra, and cut its losses.
As to the discussion on this thread, round up the usual suspects and their usual arguments.
La Sierra University Resignation Saga: Stranger-than-Fiction
It is a remarkably fair and unbiased article, and a pretty fair summary of what was said in the recorded conversation.
