Who am I / Contact me

My name is Michael Kent.   I have been a research scientist at Sandia National Laboratories since 1992.  I have a Ph.D in Chem. Eng. and Mat. Sci. from the U. of Minn. for research involving static and dynamic light scattering from polymer mixtures and copolymers.  Following my thesis work, I spent two years as a post-doc in Paris, France working at the Unviersity of Paris VI and the Curie Institute. There I focused on grazing incidence X-ray and neutron scattering techniques for studing the structure of polymers at interfaces.

This course is essentially a summary of many excellent resources from the ARN website and other sources, supplemented with my own perspectives which arise from my experience as a research scientist. Throughout my professional carreer, I have been heavily involved in fundamental research, where publications in major physics and chemistry journals (Journal of Chemical Physics, Physical Review Letters, Macromolecules) have been the main deliverable.  Since most of my career has centered around publishing my own work and reviewing the work of others, I feel qualified to comment on the integrity that normally protects the process, and contrast that with what I see when the subject of origins is communicated to the public.

Normally, there are carefully guarded principles for publicly stating scientific claims. A very important aspect of "good science" is the ability to assign an appropriate confidence level to a scientific statement as merited by the weight of the evidence.  However, I find that the integrity of the process that is so essential for reaching correct conclusions is not guarded when the subject of origins is addressed.  It seems to me that the same rules do indeed usually operate in the scientific literature in areas related to origins such as biology and cosmology, but are often violated when this subject is communicated to the public.  For example, the origin-of-life exhibit at the Albuquerque Museum of Natural History is organized around a theme which is expressed in the following equation (displayed prominently in the center of the exhibit):

Gas + energy = DNA

I don't think there is a reviewer alive that would accept that statement as fact based on the available evidence (notice that it is stated as a fact, not as a proposition or working hypothesis).  I would certainly reject a paper with such a claim as unsupported by the evidence, and I don't think such a statement could be published in any reputable scientific journal.   Another example is the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes (variation in finch beaks or coloration of moths) to account for macroevolutionary changes (eyes, brains hearts, etc).  Normally, wild extrapolations which go beyond the data provoke a swift rejection.  Yet this extrapolation is standard fare when the subject of origins is presented to the public.

In short, it seems to me that the Darwinian creation story has been given a huge pass from the level of scrutiny that is characteristic of the scientific enterprise in general.  Why and how this has occurred is a key theme addressed within the course material.

My experience in material science has been that, more often than not, researchers welcome and indeed are grateful for critical comments and suggestions that challenge them to think about their conclusions in different ways, or provide ways to further test their hypotheses.  They look upon it as an opportunity, and they thank the person raising the issue or making the criticism (of course not always).  Indeed, this is one great benefit to presenting one's work in public.  I have experienced this many times myself, and frequently observe this attitude of welcoming challenging criticism in my peers.  However, this contrasts with what I see in the area of origins.  For example, regarding the origin of information in biological systems, typical responses are "you just don't understand Darwinian logic" or "only a Creationist would ask such a question" or "it is unreasonable to expect an answer because the truth is lost in the irretrievable world of biological history" (see for example R. Dawkins' The Information Challenge, The Skeptic 18, no. 3, (1998) or www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/dawkinschallenge.htm).   The response in my field would be "that is a very interesting way to think about it, I'll go back to the lab and put that to the test".  Or simply, "yes, we have thought about that and here is a definitive counterexample to that criticism."

Today I think naturalists are in an interesting position.  They have to choose between the impossible (proposed mechanisms which are clearly inadequate/untenable) and the unthinkable (naturalism is not sufficient).  The examples that are given to support the grand claims of the naturalistic creation story are embarrassing to science.  Characteristicly, an infinitesimal change is offered as support for the entire story.  For example, in the National Academy of Science's pamphlet "Teaching about evolution and the nature of science", the hypothesis of the naturalistic transformation from nonliving chemicals to today's existing biota is supported by the example of cyclical finch beak variation.  If a paper making such a remarkable claim and offering that example as support were sent to me, I (and I believe anyone in my field) would immediately reject the paper.  Yet this supposedly comes from the elite body of scientists in America.  I think this kind of embarrassment to science cannot continue because ultimately, the scientific enterprise does have integrity.  It just shows that even the very best scientists can act unscientifically.

I am for truth in advertising, and integrity such as is characteristic of other areas of science.  There should be honesty and forthrightness, especially in the area of origins where worldviews are at issue.  I don't think that is too much to ask.

I know that many will disagree with some of the conclusions presented in this course.  I welcome any comments offered in the spirit of honest, intellectual debate.  Please send them to:  mmkent@comcast.net