I had said:
Her "doctorate" comes from Pat Robertson's Regent University. Robertson is a fine fellow, but I have doubts about the scientific integrity of that institution.I like Robertson. I pretty much said so. Thus, there is no ad hominem aspect to my criticism. What I know about Regent comes from information that they choose to make public:
Our mission is to provide exemplary education, from a biblical perspective, leading to bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees for aspiring servant-leaders in pivotal professions, and to be a leading center of Christian thought and action.I therefore assumed a scientific outlook that is similar to that of the Institute for Creation Research, which has a similar mission statement (although they seem to have removed it from their website recently). As was later pointed out to me, the author's scientific degree comes from some other school, so my post was irrelevant to her scientific training. Indeed, Regent's website doesn't indicate that they offer any degrees in the sciences.
Source: Regent University's Mission Statement.
Actually, Robertson's scientific outlook may be just fine.
"Now creation science ... is really pretty bogus. ... I think there's a lot of hocus pocus in that stuff. ... Some of that stuff just doesn't meet the smell test."So upon reconsideration, I have no problem with Regent. They don't hold themselves out as a scientific institution, and Robertson's attitude about science doesn't seem troublesome.
-- Pat Robertson, Source: Answers in Genesis