Sean Pitman: A scientist hired by the SDA Church to promote …

Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by Professor Kent.

Sean Pitman: A scientist hired by the SDA Church to promote the Adventist perspective cannot be going around attacking any fundamental doctrinal position of the Adventist Church – to include Adventist position on origins or any other fundamental doctrinal position of the church (and expect to maintain his/her job). It is fine to be silent on a particular topic that is not directly related to what you’re specifically hired to teach. But, its a very different thing if one feels compelled to openly attack the church’s position on this or that doctrinal position that is fundamental to the church.

Okay…so a music, history, or religion professor should not be required to speak out on doctrines like origins, since they are not hired to do so. But you have maintained that a scientist must speak out on origins, declaring it to be upheld by scientific evidence, presumably because you believe they are hired to do so. And this remains the case even if they personally believe the Church’s position on origins is based on theology rather than science. In other words, you insist that all SDA scientists must believe the Church’s doctrine on origins is scientific, and therefore they are required to teach it as such, and refusal to teach as such renders them unfit for employment. Do I understand you correctly?

Professor Kent Also Commented

What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?

Sean Pitman: Jesus himself is also quoted as having Himself witnessed the war in Heaven and described Lucifer / Satan being cast out “like lightening” (Luke 10:18) – as already noted. Other passages in the Bible also describe Satan and his angels being removed from their original home in Heaven (Such as Jude 1:6, Isaiah 14:12-15, or Ezekiel 28:1-26). And, Mrs. White also describes the same…

Sean, I think you’re seriously pushing the boundaries of word usage in both scripture and in Ellen White.

Years ago, there was “war” in my home, too. Among my kids, I witnessed “rebellion,” “contempt,” and “conflict,” and eventually I “expelled” my kids from home. “Not a taint of rebellion was left in” my home. “All was again peaceful and harmonious as before.”

These words were all used by EGW to describe the “war in heaven.” But I can assure you there were no physical fights or brandishing of weapons in my home.

Of course, language and human reason are what you want them to be.


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?

Sean Pitman: While such things cannot be directly investigated, empirically, their credibility is tied into that which can be empirically investigated and tested about the source of such fantastic claims – the Bible and its authors. Is there anything upon which to establish the degree of credibility necessary to rationally conclude that what they claimed to have witnessed is in fact true historical reality?

Ahem…you’re putting Scripture on par with a historical novel. If part of the story is true, then all of its claims are true. And you want to believe this is science!

You show utmost disrespect to scripture and God’s word when you continue to defend the position that we interpret it and believe it only within the confines of human reason. How utterly un-Adventist!


What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
You can’t falsify hypotheses that comprise supernatural explanations for events such as the creation, the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Jesus. Ever.

Even if you showed that it was possible for a voice command to transform a lump of dirt into a living, breathing human, or that a human virgin could give birth to a child without participation of sperm, or that a three-day deceased human body could come back to life, you STILL have no support that would could happen actually did happen as hypothesized.

If your hypothesis cannot be falsified, it’s beyond the purview of science. No one–not even Sean Pitman–can contain God within the walls erected by finite human minds.


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.