How am I stacking the deck by asking you for …

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

How am I stacking the deck by asking you for what you would accept as a valid empirical evidence for a “miracle”? – or expecting some kind of honest reasonable response? Your answer was that essentially no evidence, no matter how fantastic, not even if you personally were to witness something like the Resurrection of Jesus or the healing of a man born blind, etc., would be enough to convince you that a miracle had occurred. How is it solipistic of me to refuse to continue a conversation with someone who claims that there is nothing I could possibly say, no evidence that I could possibly present, which would be convincing to you? If anything is solipistic, that’s it. Your position is effectively immune from even the possibility of challenge or falsification – definitively stacking the deck so that you can’t possibly be shown to be wrong by anything I could possibly present. In other words, it seems to me like you’re guilty of everything you’re accusing me of doing. It is pointless, therefore, to discuss this topic with you since your mind is, apparently, already made up and cannot be changed regardless of what anyone might be able to bring to the table. You’ve set the bar so high that it cannot be crossed, even in theory – which makes further conversation futile by definition.

Why should I tell you about the miracles I’ve personally witnessed? – to include those I see on a daily basis and the many miracles of life, the universe, and those in the Scriptures that I’ve already discussed with you in this forum? for what purpose? I’ve already pointed these things out to you, but these evidences are obviously going to be meaningless for someone who wouldn’t be impressed even if the Resurrection itself could be directly shown to you – or any of the other fantastic miracles described in the Bible. What I have to offer will not put the smallest dent in such a mindset, so why bother?

As far as upsetting people by what I’ve said in this forum and the positions I hold and promote, it seems to me that the only ones I’ve really upset in this forum are those evolutionists and fideists who view faith like you do – as religious wishful thinking devoid of the need for empirical evidence or rational argument. In any case, I’m not here to win any popularity contests.

Beyond this, my position on miracles is no secret. It’s not something I’m trying to hide, obviously. I am, after all, arguing for the detectably designed nature of the origin and diversity of life on this planet and the miraculous credibility of the Bible that cannot be readily distinguished from what most would expect from a God or God-like intelligence and creative power. Consider, for example, the following video where I present my thoughts on miracles (from the 25:53 to the 43:21 minute marks):

Or, see the following video (from the 15:20 to the 18:50 minute marks):

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.