You are of course right I have interpreted your writings …

Comment on Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools by Sean Pitman.

You are of course right I have interpreted your writings and statements but in the absence of a clear statement I am left to surmise.

How many times do I have to give you a clear statement that leaving Christianity isn’t the same thing as accepting atheism? – before you’ll remember?

1] You have argued for empirical evidence and science are the basis for all your religious views and that anything not based on empiricism is no more than wishful thinking. Is that true or not?

If all you have are subjectively derived “gestalt” feelings, then yes, I see no difference between such feelings and wishful thinking when it comes to believing in such things as the “Virgin Birth” or the “Resurrection of Jesus” or the reality of an empirically real place called “Heaven” after this life is done.

2] I am assuming that your religious views are consistent with Adventism which I understand to be a subset of Christianity which is in turn a subset of religions which most people would consider spiritual or supernatural beliefs
Is that true? If not give me the caveats and provisos

As you already know, I do subscribe to the Adventist perspective on Christianity – because of what I see as the weight of empirical evidence that rationally leads me to this conclusion.

3] You have claimed that because of your understanding based as it is, on science and empiricism you consider the only honest view is that God intervenes in history on a regular basis including by creating all life 6000 years ago. Is that true?

I do believe that God created all life on this particular planet within recent history (i.e., less than 10,000 years ago). However, this is the only honest view for me given what I know of empirical reality. Others may honestly subscribe to a very different view. I believe that the significant majority of neo-Darwinists and even atheists are honest in their views. They’re just honestly ignorant – as are you.

4] You claim the bulk of the empirical evidence supports a particular model of 6000 year history for life on Earth. This is based on science which as you define it is hypothesis testing so therefore religious views must be falsifiable by empirical data. Is that true?

If you want to move beyond wishful thinking, then yes, your “religious” views (at least those which include empirical claims) must be open to testing with at least the potential for effective falsification.

5] You then conclude that if you in the course of testing your hypothesis of a religion totally dependent on life being 6000 years old you discover a fact that unequivocally indicates to any reasonable person that life is indeed more than 6000 years old then you must reject your YEC/Adventism/Christian hypothesis. Is this right?

If a fundamental concept of a hypothesis or theory is effectively shown to be false, then yes, it should be rejected in favor of an alternate hypothesis that actually explains the data in hand. That’s the only rational position to take. In my view, Christianity is fundamentally dependent upon the recent arrival of life on this planet. The falsification of this concept effectively falsifies numerous fundamental Christian concepts – such as the idea that the suffering and death of all sentient creatures on this planet was the result of the moral Fall of Adam and Eve and that this current state of affairs will one day be ended when God recreates this world back to how it was originally intended to be.

6] Because you believe that religion is based on empirical evidence and science then you must reject religion based on the veto power of science. Am I parsing your “if I ever” statement correctly?

If the empirical claims of your religion end up being effectively falsified by the weight of empirical evidence (such as the LDS concept that the American Indians descended from the “Lost Tribes of Israel”), then yes, the credibility of your religion should rationally take a hit – at least for those who wish to have their religion based on something more rational and useful than wishful thinking.

7] If you reject the 6000 year scenario and a monolithic view that is Adventism then you must also reject Christianity any maybe all religion because of the science.
Is that true?

No. That’s not true. Christianity can be rejected without rejecting the concept of a God of some kind. There are many non-Christian views of God that are far more compatible with neo-Darwinism. Christianity is, however, rationally incompatible with neo-Darwinism. It’s fundamental claims simply make no rational sense given the reality of neo-Darwinism.

8] In rejecting YEC, Adventism and Christianity because of empirical evidence and the science do you not think that people might be tempted to think that you place empirical and scientific knowledge above all other ways of knowing or understanding God.

There are a few aspects of God that can be determined and understood by entirely subjective means (such as the existence of ethical standards and the truth of the Royal Law of Love). However, such a subjective understanding of God need not lead one toward Christianity or an understanding of the superior credibility or Divine origin of the Bible or any of the empirical claims of the Bible. Such objective knowledge must be learned through intellectual means. It cannot be determined on a subjective basis alone.

9] In the absence of any stated alternative your “…if I ever…” statement can only logically be understood as advocacy for empiricism at the expense of any experiential aspects of Christian knowlege, of philosophical naturalism and a process that leads to a rejection of any God less that the almighty creator God. A position most people would consider indistinguishable from atheism.

Again, you should already know that there are many alternatives to Christianity besides atheism. I should hope I wouldn’t have to go into detail here. However, given your argument that faith is by definition illogical, without any need for logical argument outside of your own personal subjective experience, then such a definition of faith would most certainly play into the hands of the “new atheists”. An entirely subjective religion offers absolutely no threat to atheistic arguments. That is why atheists are not at all threatened by those who think like you do. They simply dismiss you with a sympathetic wave of the hand…

So, let me ask you a question:

How do you tell the difference between wishful thinking and your “third option” for a useful definition of “faith” in at least some of the empirical claims of the Bible?

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
As I’ve pointed out before, there are a lot of books claiming to be “The Word of God”. How do you know that the Bible’s claim, among so many competing options, is true? – based on a feeling? That’s how you know? Did an angel show up and tell you that the Bible’s claims are true? – or how to interpret it? Were you born with this knowledge? or did you have to learn it? If you had to learn that the Bible’s claims are true, upon what did you base your learning? – and how did this basis of your learning help you distinguish the true from the false?

At first approximation, the Bible is just a book making a bunch of claims. How can you tell the difference between the origin of the Bible and the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? In order to determine that God had anything to do with its creation, you have to read it and make judgments about it. If you base your judgments on some kind of deep feeling or gestalt sensation of truth, I say that this isn’t a reliable basis for a leap of faith. However, if you base your acceptance of the claims of the Bible on rational arguments that make sense given what you already think you know to be true, then you have yourself a much more useful and helpful basis for faith… as the Bible itself recommends.

God does not expect us to believe or have faith without sufficient evidence to establish a rational and logical faith in the claims of the Bible. Have you not read where the Bible challenges the honest seeker for truth to “test” even the claims of God? (Judges 6:39; Malachi 3:10; John 14:11; etc…). We are not called to blindly accept anything as true, not even the Bible. The claims of the Bible must be tested to see if they truly are what they claim to be – i.e., the Words of God.


Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
I haven’t changed my mind. I still see atheism as the most logical alternative to Christianity and any other view of God if such views of God are only based on a wishful-thinking type of fideistic faith. Why should one be a Christian or believe that the Bible is anything more than a good moral fable? – or believe that God exists any more than Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? For me, it’s because I see real empirical evidence for God’s existence as well as His Signature within the pages of the Bible and within the universe and the world in which I find myself.

You see, we are called to have an “intelligent trust” in God’s Word – a trust that is based on something more than a deep feeling or internal gestalt. Otherwise, you’re really in the same boat as my LDS friends with their “burning in the bosom” argument for faith in what is or isn’t true.

Now, it is possible to doubt the Divine origin of the Bible while still recognizing the Divine origin of the universe – based on the weight of empirical evidence. This is where quite a number of modern physicists are in their view of God. And, it is a reasonable position given the honest conviction that life and its diversity can evolve via the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection over long periods of time to produce what we have today on this planet.

So, there are different “levels” of recognition when it comes to seeing God’s hand behind various phenomena. And, once His Signature is recognized at a different level, the implications and responsibilities change for us. It’s a “first step” toward God to recognize a Divine Signature behind the origin of the universe and the natural laws that govern it. However, once one recognizes the Divine Hand behind the origin of the Bible and the credibility of the Bible’s empirical claims, one is called to experience different responsibilities and privileges in a higher level walk with God – “in Spirit and in truth”.


Ted Wilson: No Room for Evolution as Truth in Adventist Schools
Again, there are somethings that, if seen in vision, cannot be easily misinterpreted. If you see that “there was light” then “there was darkness” and that this pattern of was used to mark off a series of seven days, that’s pretty hard to get wrong or misinterpret. Mrs. White also confirms these biblical claims by arguing that God specifically showed her that the creation week was a literal week “like any other”.

So, what needs to happen now is see which claims among competing claims are most likely true. Where does the “weight of evidence lie”? If the claims of neo-Darwinism are true, then the claims of the Bible aren’t just a matter of honest misinterpretations – they are either completely made up fabrications or they are outright lies – from God.

I will say, however, the Darwins observations did help to shed light on the Bible. For example, there were those who believed in the absolute fixity of the species – that nothing could change and that no new species of any kind could be produced by natural mechanisms. Darwin showed, quite clearly, that this interpretation of the Bible was false. So, Darwin’s discoveries did shed light on the Bible’s comments about reproduction “after their kind”. However, the Bible sheds light on Darwin’s claims by showing the clear limitations of Darwinian-type evolution – to very low levels of functional complexity over a short period of time (i.e., not hundreds of millions of years of evolution).

Again, we have science and Scripture shedding light on each other…


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.