@ Johnny Vance You ignored all the Biblical examples and examples …

Comment on For real education reform, take a cue from the Adventists by Professor Kent.

@ Johnny Vance

You ignored all the Biblical examples and examples from Ellen White that illustrate how to deal with public sins that affect the prosperity and welfare of the church. Taking care of problems is uncomfortable. But it must be done.

So…the Bible and Ellen White condone use of the internet to broadcast to the entire world, leaving a permanent record, any statement made by a teacher or pastor accompanied by a feast of critical commentary denouncing that individual. That’s amazing.

The University of California system prohibits broadcasting any kind of recording that takes place in a classroom without obtaining proper permission. Absurd, isn’t it? Secular society needs to take a clue from Adventism: there should be no holds barred, no grace, no private discussion with the individual, no forgiveness.

We have our work cut out for us if we truly want to show the world “what would Jesus would do.” As it is written, “Let’s hold them accountable.”

Professor Kent Also Commented

For real education reform, take a cue from the Adventists
Ron, thank you for your very insightful post.

I believe that those who have responded here fail to understand your message–which was very stated by Paul and by Ellen White. Jesus can identify wrong and has the authority, as EMK put it, to make scenes by overturning the tables, yelling, and cracking a whip. For us, in contrast, the instruction is unmistably clear:

“Christ has plainly taught that those who persist in open sin must be separated from the church, but He has not committed to us the work of judging character and motive. He knows our nature too well to entrust this work to us. Should we try to uproot from the church those whom we suppose to be spurious Christians, we should be sure to make mistakes.”


For real education reform, take a cue from the Adventists
@ Johnny Vance

1) Does the Spectrum blog get the same criticism from you for its public and vitriolic rants against the church as Educate Truth? If not then I’d be curious to know why they get a pass.

I’ve only read a handful of articles at Spectrum, mostly concerning EducateTruth. I’m not familiar with the “rants” there against the Church, unless you’re speaking of the liberals who complain of narrow-mindedness, and the conservatives who openly criticize the leadership for not being decisive enough in dealing with the liberals. I don’t really doubt your assessment. I would hazard a guess that much of the discussion at Spectrum is probably a keen embarrassment to our Lord.

2) If you think that Educate Truth is so bad, then why do you keep on feeding the fire by posting on it? Common sense would say that you’d shun it to prove it’s as irrelevant and as awful as you claim it to be. It’s ironic to note that you’re one of those who’s actually proving Educate Truth’s point.

I’m proving Educate Truth’s point? Really? I’m here for one reason only, and that is to defend those who I think are being shamed and humiliated in an unChristlike manner, regardless of whether they are “guilty” of the charges levied here, and even more so if they are not. I’d like to get away from this site because I am thoroughly disgusted by the way SDAs enthusiastically and unapologetically treat each other–particularly those who cite Bible verses to justify their vitriolic attacks. Frankly, it often makes me want to walk away from the Church, and that may one day happen (to your rejoicing, perhaps). But I feel as though I’m in a providential situation to defend my fellow biologists since I’m not employed by the Church…and having been around for decades, active in both teaching and research in biology, I recognize that much of the so-called “science” passed along here to the eager audience is absolute rubbish. I’m saddened by how poorly informed our Church membership is on science issues, and how faith and spirituality take a back seat to “evidence,” which truly makes our young people vulnerable when they go into the “real world.” If you shared this concern, perhaps you’d speak up about it.

3) I have yet to see you back up your accusations and rants with Biblical support. Do you just pick and choose at your convenience? There are many of us who want a better way. Please feel free to come up with a solution that will move people in a position of power to action. If not then you’re just playing ring-around-the-rosies with the devil while nothing gets done because there’s a lack of backbone in the house of God.

Let’s get this straight: I think there’s a backbone in the house of God, and you are the one making vitriolic rants at the SDA Church, not me. I’ve continually defended the Church, including its fundamental beliefs and its leadership, while you and others here continue to condemn it. You need to reexamine your own posts. I’m not responding to this further because you are simply out of line, brother Vance.


For real education reform, take a cue from the Adventists
@ Shane Hilde

So now what Kent? Should we have just ignored it all? Let it slide? Let it go on and on? What should have been done instead that hasn’t been tried already? Write more letters, hoping somebody will care eventually.
I get it. You don’t like the website, yet you’re a Seventh-day Adventist creationist etc. etc. So what’s your better idea?

Shane, I recognize the dilemma, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Here are a few suggestions:

1 – Now that you have a large following, send out notices to subscribers rather than posting for the whole world to see.

2 – Ask your readers to write letters to their leaders. The internet is not God’s ordained way to enforce Church discipline. If it ever becomes endorsed by this Church, I’d leave it in a heartbeat.

3 – Organize a constructive approach for finding qualified SDA biologists, which are scarce and probably becomer scarcer yet with every appearance of a full-fledged witch hunt. You may not think it’s one, but many in the trenches see it as such.

4 – Keep this out of the public media, which does more harm than good for the Church and for God’s cause. It brings reproach on us.

5 – Stop allowing people to post comments. Many are inflammatory and unChristlike.

6 – Tell Johnny Vance that the Church functioned just fine with discipline issues prior to the internet, and that the internet isn’t the only way to work on this issue.

7 – If you allow posts, make them ALL anonymous. That way, no one ends up on an ego trip, and no one can really identify who they are arguing with, which inevitably invites cheap-shots (which I’ll freely admit I am prone myself to take, however wrong I am in doing so).


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.