Agreed: no such thing as absolute proof of anything. Epistomology …

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

Agreed: no such thing as absolute proof of anything. Epistomology 101. Agreed: Scientists, even the most brilliant ones can be wrong ( Einstein reversing himslef on the cosmological constant, Hawkings recently reversing himself on black holes) Agreed: One can always be wrong in science. Not agreed: science requires a leap of faith. Science is based on hypothesis and theories that are tested by observation or experimentation. Faith is the domain of religion not science and that is what distinguishes them. What you are doing is trying to conflate them by semantically joining them at the hip with fused bone ‘Faith’ . By doing so you hobble both.

Not true. A leap of faith is a step into that which cannot be absolutely known. One can take a blind leap or an educated or “reasonable” leap of faith based on what little knowledge is in hand. Science is about taking the most reasonable leap of faith into the unknown that one can take based on what is known. Blind faith, on the other hand, is the basis of fideism – a form of wishful thinking.

Now, when it comes to belief in God and God’s character or that God speaks through the Bible, etc., such faith can be based on wishful thinking, to be sure. However, it is also possible that such faith could be based on the “weight of evidence” as one is able to evaluate the evidence in hand. In other words, biblical faith or any other kind of faith in a God is not required to be a blind leap of faith. It can be the same type of faith that is required for the acceptance of any scientific hypothesis or theory as “most likely true” (Link).

In short, science requires faith but faith doesn’t require science. Faith can be irrational, independent of empirical evidence or logical argument. However, faith does not have to be blind or irrational. It can be empirically based and supported by empirically rational arguments just as much as any valid scientific hypothesis or theory. After all, if God exists He is the origin of our ability to think scientifically and to use science to detect Him and His handiwork through the things that He has made. If God doesn’t exist, then science wouldn’t be able to detect the tel-tail signs of such high level design in nature at all…

And Science is the objective barometer to help determine what God is not ( an intervening force in the cosmological life of the universe and the lives of man). That is rationalism and the beauty and elegance of the unbiased collective human mind to discern same. Is there a purposeful design to the universe or is a random quantum fluctuation ( cosmic role of the dice that resulted in a universe with anthropic principles and physical constants that gave rise to and supported the evolution of life). Don’t know but that is big question for Science to continually examine irrespective of faith, hope or despair.

Science contains a subjective element that no one can escape. Still, science is useful in that it enables one to evaluate one’s thoughts and beliefs in a potentially falsifiable manner (if one is open to such falsification), but science is nothing more than a testable way of thinking (a basic BS-detector if you will). If there is a intelligent designer behind this or that phenomenon, it would therefore be possible to use scientific methodologies to detect the signature of this designer – vs. the signature of non-intelligent mechanisms. This is in fact well within the realm of scientific investigation. Your claim, on the other hand, that you would not recognize a the Signature of God regardless of the evidence that might be presented to you (The Resurrection, healing a man born blind, etc) is not scientific or rational – nor is it believable. I simply do not believe that you’d refuse to accept the implications of such evidence if you saw it with your own eyes. I believe you’re being disingenuous.

ID is a modern form of Deism. I do find it intriguing and don’t automatically rule out the concept of a design to the univesrse. But was it purposeful or accidental? That is the question?

By definition something that is “accidental” cannot be deliberately designed. The anthropic qualities of the universe, for example, do not appear to be accidental by any stretch of the imagination. That is why some try to get around the otherwise obvious implications of this by appealing to “multi-universe” theories and “quantum fluxuations” to try to explain away the extreme odds against some accidental cause. Such efforts are not based in science or rational thought but in personal philosophy – a desire to maintain skepticism at all costs regardless of the evidence presented (as seems to be your situation). In fact, such objections are anti-science because these arguments could be used to explain anything and everything – to include a situation where you happened to win the California Lottery 10 times in a row (you must have been in the right universe). After a point, it just gets quite ridiculous…

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.