History is not repeatable, but the study of history can …

Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.

History is not repeatable, but the study of history can still be done in a scientific manner.

If you find a highly symmetrical polished granite cube on an alien planet, you can’t directly reproduce the history of how it was made or how it got there. You can only hypothesize about these things. Yet, despite the non-reproducibility of the original events that produced the cube, even you have declared that such a discovery would be a “blindingly obvious” artifact of creative intelligence – without needing to directly see how it was actually done. The same thing is true of the radio signals that SETI scientists are looking for. In other words, such a cube or such a radio signal would be “miraculous” from any other perspective outside of intelligent design. That is the reproducible/testable element of the argument for design – that no other known mechanism is capable of producing the phenomenon in question. This would be true for you regardless of if anyone else agreed with you or not. You don’t need a committee of scientists or peer review to tell you the truth of such a conclusion given your own personal experience and background (at least I hope not). Science can be done, very effectively, on the individual level.

Exactly the same thing would be true if you were to personally see the Resurrection of Jesus or the healing of a man born blind. Such empirical demonstrations, like your own arguments for the intelligent origin of the granite cube, simply do not need to be repeated before then can be instantly recognized as requiring very very high level creative intelligence and power that is indistinguishable from what anyone would expect from a God. And, Jesus Himself appealed to such empirical demonstrations as evidence of His claims (Luke 7:20-23). Was Jesus being obtuse here? Of course not. The works of an author’s hands testify of their origin – like reading a book. The Book of Nature also says something about her Author.

And, a demonstration that a historical source is credible in those aspects that can be tested in a falsifiable manner does in fact lend credibility to those claims of the source that cannot be directly tested. It’s a rational argument that is used all the time in many different disciplines. This is in fact the basis of much of what historical scientists believe about historical events which cannot be directly tested. It’s all about establishing degrees of credibility.

If you will not call this sort of argument an empirical argument, a scientific argument, then you must be consistent and argue that various sciences that are based on the very same concept aren’t real sciences – to include all the historical sciences as well as anthropology, forensic science, and SETI science.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
I have no fear, thanks to God and His mercy, and no one is free of bias – not even you. You’ve simply traded one religion for another. It is still possible that your current bias blinds you to what would otherwise be obvious.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”

No, I think science would have discredited them if their ideas were not supported by observation and experimentation.

Exactly, so why not at least try to do the same for my ideas, which are quite easily falsifiable?

I know, you can’t do it yourself, but you’re quite sure that if I publish my ideas in a mainstream science journal that someone out there will know how to shoot my theory all to shreds. Right? This sounds like a no-brainer! Why not just published my ideas and test them against the big boys? It must be that I’m afraid to get shot down! and that’s why I don’t publish… Don’t you think?

I guess that’s why I went on live radio to debate Jason Rosenhouse? – because I was afraid that he’d show me how silly my ideas are on public radio? – how the Darwinian mechanism is so clearly capable of creating all kinds of things regardless of their level of functional complexity? If I was so afraid of getting smashed to pieces by some of these Darwinian big shots, why take such public risks? – even in their own blogs and public forums? Why not just hide out in my own little ghetto?

Come on now. You have to know that I’d love to be able to publish my ideas on the statistical limits to the Darwinian mechanism in a science journal like Nature or Science or any mainstream science journal. I really would. The problem, as I’ve already explained, is that no one is going to publish, in any mainstream science journal, any argument for intelligent design or creative intelligence (even if the intelligence were a “natural” intelligence like some kind of intelligent alien life form) as the origin of various kinds of biological machines. It just doesn’t happen these days without someone getting fired over it. So, the next best thing is to take the argument directly to them and challenge them in their own blogs, on the radio, and on television, etc. There’s nothing else I can do. My hands are tied.

In any case, do let me know when you’re willing to reasonably define what it would take for you to recognize a phenomenon as a true “miracle” or when you’re able to present something, anything, that explains how the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS can actually work beyond very low level of functional complexity.

Until then, what are you really contributing here? What are you trying to say? – that you don’t know but someone else probably does? That you’re skeptical about everything and nothing could possibly convince you of the existence of God or any other designer of life? – not even if you were to personally witness some of the most fantastic miracles described in the Bible? Good luck with that… but you’re just fooling yourself in your efforts never to be tricked by anything. You’re missing out on a great deal that life has to offer.

Still, I wish you all the best.


Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
All the best to you… yet again 😉


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.