Science is greater than one person’s ideas. Really? So, you …

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

Science is greater than one person’s ideas.

Really? So, you think Einstein or Galileo or Leonardo da Vinci or Newton, or even Darwin would have given up their ideas if they remained unpopular? These guys strongly believed in the individual ability to learn about the world around them using scientific methodologies and reasoning, regardless of what anyone else thought about their ideas or conclusions. It’s one thing to listen to those around you and consider carefully countering ideas, hypotheses and theories. It’s quite another thing to let others dictate your own individual opinion and interpretation of the data. Scientific breakthroughs that counter the paradigm of the day require individuals who are willing to disagree with the status quo – who will not buckle under peer pressure to conform or agree with popular opinion just because it is popular.

Beyond this, neo-Darwinism is considered to be more than a science today. It is held in reverent awe as something holy and untouchable by most mainstream scientists. It’s fundamentals are never, or nearly never, questioned in literature. Those who have tried it have put their careers on the line to do so. My ideas against the very basis of Darwinism, the Darwinian mechanism itself, would never get published in any mainstream journal. Paul Cameron has himself stated very clearly that he would never publish my ideas in any science journal if it were up to him – because he doesn’t consider my ideas scientific even though he personally has no idea how to counter my ideas. Still, he wouldn’t publish them for others to try and offer countering evidence. Why not? Because, publication is considered to be a form of credibility in and of itself and no modern science journal wants to be seen to be giving any kind of credibility to intelligent design theories. It just isn’t the same today as it was even in Einstein’s day – and even Einstein’s ideas probably wouldn’t have become published without help from Max Planck.

Before Einstein was famous, he was a nobody with nothing but an undergraduate degree. His very controversial paper probably would not have been published by anyone. So, Einstein first sent his paper to Prof. Max Planck. Surprisingly, Planck was intrigued by Einstein’s theories and he thought that they deserved to be published in the scientific journals. Planck then persuaded the editors of a local German physics journal, Annalen der Physik, to publish Einstein’s work – and so they did.

In this first 1905 paper, Einstein presented his argument, including his now famous conclusion that E=MC^2, in a very short three-page paper entitled “Does The Inertia Of A Body Depend On It’s Energy Content?” The paper had no footnotes and not one single reference to support it.

The scientific establishment went a bit bonkers.

“Who does this Einstein think he is? How dare he contradict the fundamental principles of Newtonian physics. Where is his scientific evidence? What are his credentials for making such an assertion? This is preposterous….we can’t allow people just to say things like this without proof! How dare he…this idea should be given no credence at all!”

“One Hundred Authors Against Einstein” was published in 1931. When asked to comment on this denunciation of relativity by so many scientists, Einstein replied that, “To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”

Was Einstein being solipsistic? I think not…

The same is true today. In order to falsify the ID or CI hypothesis for certain molecular machines, one doesn’t need to look to the opinion of the majority of scientists, but to the factual evidence that is currently in hand (not evidence that might be discovered in the future)…

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.