Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.
@Ron:
I do see evolution happening in many places by many mechanisms. I can list a few, but before I do, let me ask you, what is your definition of evolution. I keep offering examples looking for some common ground from which to start a discussion. If you don’t accept the examples that Darwin himself used, like the finches, then it seems to me that you must be talking about something other than Darwinian evolution.
The Darwinian mechanism for evolution is random genetic mutations combined with mindless natural selection that only acts at the phenotypic level – whereby novel genetic information is added or removed from a given gene pool over time. This mechanism (RM/NS) is real and does produced measurable, but very limited, changes over time. While it can easily remove information from the gene pool, as Sanford describes, and can add novel forms of low-level genetic information, it is unable to produce qualitatively novel systems that require a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues (single or multi-protein systems).
Ironically, many of the examples Darwin himself attributed to his RM/NS mechanism were not really the result of random mutations or anything functionally new being added to the gene pool over time. As already explained for you, Darwin didn’t know about Mendelian variation – a different form of “change over time” that is based on pre-programmed information that already exists within the gene pool which allows for high level variability in different environments. Nothing new is evolved into or out of the gene pool via Mendelian variation. In other words, during Mendelian variation the qualitative information and potential of the gene pool itself does not change at all. It is for this reason that multiple children born to the very same parents (from the very same gene pool) can look very different from their siblings or their parents… not based on any mutational changes to their own genome vs. that of their parents.
For example, my own brother and I look quite different. He has dark skin and I have light skin. He is very hairy while I am not. He has dark eyes while I have light green eyes. etc. None of these differences between us were the result of mutational changes. They were simply the result of Mendelian variations among the pre-established genetic options within our parental gene pool.
1. The HIV virus evolves through a sloppy reverse transcriptase that has an extremely high rate of error. Again, without trying to get into your argument, to a non-mathematician this seems like an example that would disprove Dr. Sanford’s theory, since HIV’s mutation rate is exceedingly high, and so far we see no sign of a genetic meltdown.
You’re forgetting about the reproductive rate aspect of the problem (no doubt because you haven’t really considered the statistics or math involved). Science is based on statistics – on determining the odds that a particular hypothesis is or isn’t correct compared to the null hypothesis. This is why your hunches or “face tests” really aren’t scientific.
So, even though you don’t seem to like statistics, consider that the HIV virus has an extremely high reproductive rate. It is this very high reproductive rate that allows the HIV population to keep up with its high detrimental mutation rate. The same is not true for slowly reproducing creatures – like humans and all other mammals who do no reproduce remotely fast enough to produce the minimum required per generation death rate needed by natural selection to remove the detrimental mutations as fast as they are entering the gene pool.
One other caveat here is that not all of the regions of the HIV virus mutate at the same rate. There are certain specific hyper-variable regions that are targeted by antigens that mutate much faster than other regions, but have little to do with the structure and overall function of the HIV virus.
2. Antibodies in the blood are created by the generation of random segments on the variable chain, then the thymus exerts a selective pressure by killing all the lymphocytes that produce antibodies that happen to match the HLA antigens.
What is evolving in the immune system? The overall structure and function of the immune cells does not evolve over time and neither do the types of antibodies that are produced. All the major types of immune cells and antibodies are produced before any functional selection takes place. Only after the T-cells are formed do they go to school to be “selected”. Also, this selection process only selects for a very limited ability – the ability to recognize and refrain from attacking self antigens. This particular selection process is very specific and it does not change over time to produce anything new. So, the major differences in antibody specificity that are maintained were all made before any selection process took place.
As far as the immune system is concerned, the initial action of “selection” and survival of the fittest only narrows the field. It reduces the antibody diversity that was initially created before selection came along.
This is different from Darwinian-style evolution where the Darwinian mechanism is supposed to create diversity. Selection, in the case of the immune system, does not expand or create more diversity – at least not in the initial steps of immune system education.
However, B-cell evolution is a bit different. Once a particular B-cell is selected for mass replication, the offspring of that parent cell are not exactly the same. The antibodies that are produced by the offspring B-cells are slightly different – usually in their “hypervariable regions”. These changes are indeed random changes that were not present in the original pool of immune system options. In other words, they are truly new sequences. When the same foreign antigen is encountered again, those slightly different clones of the original B-cell that recognize the antigen better will be preferentially selected, over the siblings that do not have as close a match, to be cloned and produce the offspring of the next generation. In this manner the specificity of immunity will indeed evolve in a stepwise truly Darwinian-style fashion of improvement over time.
The only difference here is that the antigen template the B-cells are looking to attack, like a specific type of lock, is limited in size and the number of key-code options, if you will. Also, with each additional correct match to a particular antigen code, the B-cell that produces this enhanced matched with be given increased survivability. Very quickly, then, random antibody changes over a few generations of B-cells will come up with an excellent match to the antibody sequence.
So, yes, this is evolution via RM/NS, but in a very limited restricted sense. For a more detailed discussion of antibody evolution see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/immunesystem.html
3. Large mammals of different species can pass genes between species through hybrids. For example the horse and the donkey. They have a common hybrid in the mule. Generally mules are sterile, but occasionally one is fertile. When a Mule is fertile, then it can randomly pass whole chromosomes between species just like any other pairing within a species.
Species that can produce viable and/or verile hybrids are actually part of the same gene pool. There are no qualitative functional differences between the gene pools of a horse or a donkey or a mule. The phenotypic differences are the result of differences in the chromosomal arrangements – not in the information carried by the chromosomes.
As already noted for you, please do read more about this topic at:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/donkeyshorsesmules.html
4. Ideas in my shop evolve through a process of intelligent design. (At least I hope there is some intelligence.) I come up with a solution to a problem, I build something that I think will work, and as I am in the process of building it, I often get ideas about how to make it better, so over time, it continues to evolve to be more functional and higher quality.
Stepwise creation isn’t in question here. Obviously intelligence can create in a stepwise manner. However, such intelligent creativity is not based on random mutations and mindless natural selection… which is the basis of neo-Darwinism.
5. Nylonase Gene, I’m not sure, I think the bacteria copied and combined nonfunctional gene fragments.
The nylonase enzyme was originally thought to have evolved via a frameshift mutation in a stretch of DNA coding for a 472aa protein. This frameshift mutation was thought to have been caused by the insertion of a single thymine nucleotide at just the right spot to create a “start codon” and produce an entirely new protein sequence of 392aa (6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase). Other nylonase proteins have been coded for by as few as 355aa with what seems to be fairly loose minimum sequence specificity. Then, a series of more recent studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro, of the University of Hyogo, Japan, suggest that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase (i.e., Nylonase). However, many other genes have been discovered which did evolve by gene duplication followed by a frameshift mutation affecting at least part of the gene. A 2006 study found 470 examples in humans alone. Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients – using different enzymes than had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain.
In short, there are thousands of such examples of evolution in action published in literature. However, as already explained for you, these are all low levels examples of evolution in action. None of these examples get remotely close to the level of 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues.
It is easy to evolve novel single protein enzymes at such low levels of functional complexity because potentially beneficial sequences at such low levels are much more common within low-level sequence space.
For a more detailed explanation of this topic see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#Nylonase
6. Sickle Cell trait. It was a single base transcription error. I think there are lots of mechanisms that can do such a thing. I don’t know if we know which one was the actual one. Maybe ionizing radiation?
Sickle cell anemia is the result of a single point mutation in the hemoglobin molecule that cases it to polymerize and become extremely rigid. This is caused by a point mutation in the beta globin gene at position six. As a result of this mutation, valine (a non-polar amino acid) is inserted into the b-globin chain instead of glutamic acid (an electrically charged amino acid). This mutation produces a “sticky” patch on the surface of the b-chains when they are not complexed with oxygen. Because other molecules of sickle cell hemoglobin also develop the sticky patch, they adhere to each other and polymerize into long fibers that distort the RBC into a sickle shape.
In short, this mutation produces a loss of functionality, not a novel gain in functionality. This loss of functionality is so severe that not even the malaria parasite can live in such conditions (even in individuals with the heterozygous form of this mutation – i.e., those with sickle cell trait).
This is a classic example of devolution, not evolution, within a gene pool. While a loss of information can sometimes be selectively beneficial in certain environments (as is also true for CCR5 mutations in the environment of HIV), it is still based on a loss of genetic information…
7. Cars and other transportation devices evolve through a process of intelligent design responding to the selection pressures of the market.
Again, this is not a form of Darwinian-style evolution since intelligence is involved. Stepwise creation is not the same thing as random genetic mutations and non-intelligent phenotypic selection.
8. The shape of the tree out front evolves each year based on selective growth as each leaf tries to optimize it’s sun exposure. Limbs that get more sun grow better.
Nothing new is produced at the genotypic level here. We are talking about functional changes to the gene pool over time…
9. I heard on the radio today that violent men tend to have higher testosterone levels, and tend to father a higher ratio of males to females, so that creates a selection bias in favor of violent men. I have no idea how accurate the statement is, but it is an example of how pervasive evolutionary principles are.
Scientists first became aware of this unusual fact – curiously enough – when they began to study men suffering from prostatic cancer. They noticed that individuals with prostate cancer, which itself is strongly linked with high testosterone levels (don’t forget that testosterone is the KEY androgen), tended to have many more male than female children. In whites, men who develop prostate cancer have about 4 per cent more male children, compared to men without prostatic tumours; in blacks, the increase amounts to more than 12 per cent (‘The Hypothesized Hormonal Control of Human Sex Ratio at Birth – an Update,’ Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 143, pp. 555-564, 1990).
So, while testosterone levels do seem to affect the chances of fathering male vs. female children, this is not an example of anything other than increased production of something that already exists within the gene pool. It is not an example of the novel evolution of something qualitatively new within the gene pool.
10. Relative HIV resistance in humans is conferred on Europeans, compared to Africans, by an increased prevalence of the CCR5 allele which most likely entered the Northern population through a plague, probably viral.
CCR5 is the main coreceptor on white blood cells targeted by the HIV virus. CCR5 is mainly expressed in memory T-cells, macrophages, and immature dendritic cells, and is upregulated by proinflammatory cytokines. It is coupled to the Gi class of heterotrimeric G-proteins, and inhibits cAMP production, stimulates Ca2+ release, and activates PI3-kinase and MAP kinases, as well as other tyrosine kinase cascades. A mutant allele of CCR5, CCR5 delta 32 is frequent in populations of European origin, and encodes a nonfunctional truncated protein that is not transported to the cell surface. Homozygotes for the delta 32 allele exhibit a strong, although incomplete, resistance to HIV infection, whereas heterozygotes display delayed progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).
This mutant form of CCR5 is the result of a random germline mutation, not the result of transmission via a viral plague. It has been hypothesized that this allele was favored by natural selection during outbreaks of smallpox (not the Black Death).
Why might this be? Well, the mutation(s) that disrupt normal CCR5 functionality, while having a negative effect upon overall T cell function, appear to protect against smallpox and HIV. Yersinia pestis (the bubonic plague bacterium) was demonstrated in the laboratory not to associate with CCR5. Individuals with the non-functional Δ32 allele of CCR5 are disproportionately at higher risk of contracting the West Nile virus.
In any case, like the evolution of antibiotic resistance, the evolution of viral resistance is relatively easy to achieve in a short amount of time because such forms of evolution are based on the disruption of a pre-established interaction. It is much easier to break something that was previously working just fine (like the CCR5 co-receptor protein) via a random mutation(s) compared to trying to evolve a novel system of function.
This is what makes the evolution of antiviral and antibiotic resistance such a problem in the medical community.
For more information on this topic see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/antibioticresistance.html
11. I read recently that there have been identified 38 specific mutations in the Tibetan population that has occurred in the last 3000 years that has allowed their population to escape pressure from the Han Chinese by moving to higher altitudes. I don’t know the mechanisms. But, are you denying that this is evolution?
As I’ve already explained to you in this very same thread, it seems that a modification of just one gene is primarily responsible for the enhanced ability of Tibetans to tolerate high altitudes (EPAS1). This EPAS1 gene is thought to affect red blood cell production. It happens to be present in both the Han (low altitude) as well as the Tibetan (high altitude) populations. It is just that this gene is present in only 9% of the Han population, but is found in 87% of the Tibetan population.
“It is the fastest change in the frequency of a mutation described in humans,” said Professor Nielsen.
So, the evolution responsible for this particular effect is two fold. First, it involved a mutation that enhanced a pre-existing function of red blood cell production. It did not produce a novel type of function that did not already exist. It just increased the amount of what already existed. Such mutations are quite common and are very rapidly evolved via random mutations to pre-existing systems.
Once realized, this beneficial mutation will indeed spread fairly rapidly throughout the population… as is clearly evident in many such examples.
None of this, however, discounts or significantly mitigates the reality that detrimental mutations are still building up in all human populations far far faster than they can be removed by natural selection – even in Tibetans. The reason for this is that detrimental mutations greatly outpace the rate of such beneficial mutations (to include reversion mutations). We are all, therefore, rapidly heading downhill toward the eventual and inevitable extinction of the entire human race.
12. At one point, humans had the same number of Chromosomes as the chimps, but two of the chromosomes combined into one chromosome, so now Humans have one less chromosome than chimps do. How do you fit that fact into the Biblical narrative? Do you think that the chromosome combination took place some time after creation? I have a hard time imagining God creating us originally with a chromosome with double centrameres and telemeres.
Sure. This mutation could easily have taken place during a population bottleneck – as is the case for donkeys vs. horses. It is really functionally irrelevant as it does not add or take away any functional element from the gene pool.
For more information on this topic see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/pseudogenes.html#Fusion
I would note however that the presence of evolution does not necessarily imply an improvement. Let’s go back to Darwin’s finches. We could imagine an island that had both finches and gross beaks on it at the start. Then some catastrophe destroys all of the gross beaks. Those finches who have larger bills may be more successful at taking advantage of the new ecological niche that opened up, so the finch population evolves toward larger beaks. But that doesn’t mean that the finches are better than the gross beaks were. This would be an example of “devolution” on the larger, island scale, with positive evolution on the smaller, finch, scale. I suspect we will see more and more of this kind of evolution as we kill off more and more of our highly specialized species.
This isn’t an example of the evolution of anything new within gene pools at all (neither a gain or a loss). The extinction of one gene pool did not add or take away genetic information from the other gene pool. Again, this illustration of yours would be an example of Mendelian variation – not the same thing as Darwinian evolution.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Ken:
Aside from the fact that science cannot definitively prove any theory, yes, a form of historical science can be used to test and evaluate Biblical prophecies. You have to know a lot about history though. You can’t simply read Daniel and Revelation and hope to understand what you’re reading unless you have detailed knowledge of the historical events being discussed.
I recommend you start with the “70 weeks” prophecy starting with Daniel 9:24. This prophecy precisely predicts the First Coming of Jesus as well as his death to the day.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:
I’ve been doing this a long time (almost 20 years now) and I can tell you that, as far as I know, no one has misunderstood my position as a young life creationist who also recognizes limited forms of Darwinian evolution…
This isn’t like accepting a little bit of Nazism. The Darwinian mechanism is given its name because Darwin really was the first to popularize it in published literature. Therefore, he deserves to have his name attached to the mechanism of RM/NS.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:
I’ve only been expaining why I say things the way I say them. I believe it is best to at least try to start off a discussion on as much common ground as is possible with those on the opposing side in a discussion… to openly admit those points, from the opposing side, that are actually valid.
As I see it, there is simply no advantage in arguing that Darwinian evolution is completely wrong – that I believe in no form of Darwinism. It’s just not true for one thing and admitting those things that the Darwinian mechanism can produce only adds to the credibility of the creationist position – in my opinion.
Sean Pitman
www.DeteectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Obviously, I’m not talking about women who don’t understand how IUDs and hormonal birth control work. I’m talking about women who do understand. And, according to your cited reference, the majority of women who have such knowledge would not stop using such forms of birth control. Given your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception, such fully-informed women would most certainly be guilty of pre-meditated first-degree murder – before God. Again, morally speaking, it doesn’t matter at all what a human government may or may not say or do. Human governments don’t determine true morality. What really matters is what God thinks. Are such fully-informed women murderers before God? The same as a woman who kills her baby at full term? – just before it would otherwise be born naturally? That’s my question here. I could not make the accusation of murder against a woman using hormonal birth control or IUDs because there really is no unambiguous Scriptural support for your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception – as far as I’m able to tell. That’s the bottom line here.
As far as your argument that the word Gabriel used for John the Baptist before he was born was the same as for a baby that had been born (supporting the equal moral value of the unborn), the Greek that Gabriel used here was: βρέφος. Notice, however, that Gabriel did not use this particular word until John was already six months old (Luke 1:36-41). So, again, as previously discussed with you, I fail to see how Gabriel is defining John as a full human being from the moment of conception here.
After all, an early embryo can split in two, or three or four or five embryos – ending in identical offspring. Yet, although genetically identical, each baby produced in this manner is a unique person. Twins may have identical genetics and indistinguishable bodies, yet they are uniquely different people before God. When did the unique identify of each of these identical twins or triplets, etc., begin? Clearly, not at the moment of conception. You see, the creation of unique genetics isn’t the same thing as the creation of a unique soul or individual person.
You say that I’m unable to provide Scriptural evidence for the dichotomy between the moral value of a person and “its nature”. Well, where is your definitive Scriptural evidence in support for a single cell or small clump of a few cells being fully human? As a relevant aside, where does the Scripture talk about “brain death”? Yet, we do not consider it “murder” or even “manslaughter” to “pull the plug” or harvest the organs of someone who is definitively brain dead – even if the rest of the body is still alive. Why is that do you think? Obviously, because there is no “false dichotomy” here even though Scripture doesn’t specifically address such a situation. The same could very reasonable be true of the human embryo as well. There simply is no definitive Scripture otherwise as far as I can tell.
As far as the LXX, Masoretic, and DSS all “agreeing”, with you I presume, regarding Exodus 21:22-25, well, I just don’t see it that way – and neither do many others, to include many well known historians and Christian leaders and thinkers. There has been a widespread and nuanced theological debate about the beginning of life in the history of Christianity. The idea that personhood begins at the moment of conception is far from a universally agreed upon matter of historical Christian doctrine. When viewed in the long history of the Christian tradition, it is the minority position. In any case, Exodus 21:22-25 does read differently in the LXX and none of the translations seem to definitively support your position. Ancient Jewish scholars certainly didn’t take your perspective. Since the death of a person would be murder or manslaughter, and carry a different penalty, most rabbinic sources deduce from these verses that a fetus has a different status. The Babylonian Talmud states that: “The embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” So, I’m afraid that the “weight of evidence” is not clearly on your side here – at least not as best as I am able to tell. Certainly nothing in the New Testament definitively clears up this question in your favor.
The other names your mention present no more convincing arguments than you present – as far as I can tell. They may be less abrasive in their approach (certainly Nic is a very kind and tenderhearted man), but the basic arguments used are very similar to those forwarded by Andrew – just not convincing to me despite my honest efforts to carefully consider them as best as I am able.
Now, it is interesting to me that you actually argue that my position on abortion, “my own definition”, is clear enough to indict those who have committed late-term abortions of murder. If so, I fail to understand your argument that I’ve said and done “nothing” here to make my position clear to the church. The leadership of the SDA Church is well aware of my position.
Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew’s response (Link):
____________
Please notice that by Dr. Pitman’s own argument his very own Adventist Church supports the murder of the unborn (see @25:01) yet notice in his response that he completely ignores this. The Adventist Church, to which Pitman belongs, supports the violent torture and murder of boys and girls in utero yet Pitman spends his time criticizing……Prolife Andrew. To use an analogy, if you belonged to a church that supports rape or slavery why would you then complain about another church member who opposes this? Pitman complains that Andrew is “needlessly abrasive in his tone” but, to further the analogy, at least Andrew doesn’t support rape or slavery! Apparently, an abrasive tone is worth more criticism than supporting or practicing murder. My video is vindicated.
A few additional points:
1.
Pitman does everyone a favor by openly proving the point. He says “Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” RESPONSE: As was explicitly stated in the video @15:29 onwards it was stated “government to make illegal the manufacture sale and use of chemicals that are used to kill or do kill other human beings Dr Pitman however completely ignores this.” And how does Pitman respond? By doing exactly that, ignoring this fact. Andrew’s opinion is irrelevant to the premise of the argument which Pitman ignores: The government can protect the right to life. It can charge people with crimes for destroying an innocent life. The degree of the crime and one’s culpability is determined by the government, not by Andrew. Pitman, again, just ignores the argument. (See also the video @56:29 onwards).
2.
In his response under the video Pitman says “It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face.” This is another falsehood because Pitman is confusing (1) birth control pills that prevent implantation with (2) injecting poison into supermarket foods. The big difference between the two is knowledge. In the former most women have no idea how contraceptives work. The vast majority of women who take contraceptives do so ignorant of how they work while, in Pitman’s example, injecting poison relies upon knowledge. Most women do not know how contraceptives work and if they did know it would change their behavior. For example, in 2010 a journal for obstetrics and gynecology reported that 45% of the women said that they would not consider using a birth control method that had post-fertilization effects, and 48% of women said that if they found out they were using a method that had post-fertilization effects, they would stop using that method. Lopez-del Burgo C, Lopez-de Fez CM, Osorio A, Guzmán JL, de Irala J. Spanish women’s attitudes towards post-fertilization effects of birth control methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Jul;151(1):56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.03.012. Epub 2010 Apr 13. PMID: 20392555. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20392555/
3.
Pitman says “despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails.” RESPONSE: This is both false and absurd as Gabriel is describing a physical situation wherein the nature of the unborn is defined with the exact same Greek words for born sons. Pitman assumes a false dichotomy between “moral value” of the unborn and its nature but he is unable to provide any scriptural evidence for such a dichotomy.
4.
Pitman says “Taken together, all of the translations of this passage [Exodus 21:22-23] leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.” This is false because as was explicitly stated in the video, the Masoretic, LXX, and DSS all agree. The weight of the evidence is against Pitman here. And as was noted above, Pitman is here assuming a dichotomy for which he has no evidence. Furthermore, as was noted explicitly in the video @49:13, Pitman is committing a category error by comparing unintentional vs. intentional. Despite this being addressed explicitly Pitman ignores this as well. (This is the same Pitman @54:16 who criticizes others for rejecting the weight of evidence).
5.
Arguably, one of the biggest falsehoods is when Pitman complains that Prolife Andrew is “often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful.” This is false because Prolife Andrew’s videos began in 2017. There have been many prolife voices within Adventism especially since the late 1980s and early 1990s. Pitman complains about Andrew’s tone but doesn’t make such accusations against those who for decades preceded Andrew because he can’t. Nic Samojluk, Doug Yowell, Teresa Beem, Dr. Martin Weber, George Gainer, George Lawson, Dr. Richard Fredericks, etc. were all well known and continue to be outspoken about the Adventist Church’s support for murder. As was mentioned in the video @34:50 Pitman also ignores the arguments of Drs. Robert George and Christopher Tollefson who are some of the most highly respected, articulate voices concerning the ethics of (embryonic) abortion. For these people Pitman can’t make accusations of “abrasive tone” so he simply continues his trend of just ignoring them. This tactic was explicitly noted @58:56 and Pitman just again vindicates the accuracy of the video.
Pitman belongs to a church that has, by his own definition, officially and publicly supported the violent murder of helpless, little children for over fifty years.
Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew Michell (AKA: ProLife Andrew) has put out a lengthy video in response to my article on abortion.
His YouTube Channel can be found here: Link
And his Facebook page here: Link
And his page on X here: Link
While I commend Andrew’s passion to protect the lives of the unborn, I find his argument that full human life begins at the moment of conception unconvicting – at least inconclusive. I mean, if the full moral value of human life truly begins at the moment of conception, as Andrew, the Catholic Church, and many Protestants believe, then all women who use various forms of birth control that block embryologic development (after fertilization) are forms of premeditated murder (to include IUDs and various birth control medications).
- Progestin-only pills (mini-pill): These pills thicken cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg, and thin the lining of the uterus, making it less hospitable for implantation.
- Combined oral contraceptives (the pill), patch, vaginal ring, and injections: These methods prevent ovulation, meaning no egg is released for fertilization, and also thicken cervical mucus and thin the uterine lining.
- Contraceptive implant (Nexplanon): This small rod inserted under the skin releases progestin, reducing pregnancy by reducing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and thinning the uterine lining reducing implantation.
- Hormonal IUD: These IUDs release progestin, which changes the cervix and uterus to prevent sperm from reaching an egg and also makes it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant.
- Copper IUD: This IUD uses copper to prevent pregnancy by creating an environment that is unfavorable for sperm and fertilization, and also disrupts the lining of the uterus, making implantation less likely.
- Emergency contraception: Some emergency contraceptive pills, like Plan B, can prevent implantation if taken soon after unprotected sex.
So, are women who use such birth control methods truly guilty of murder? – as Andrew’s position would indicate?
While it is true that the genetics of a person are set at conception, what about the moral worth of a person? You see, science cannot address this question. So, where can one turn to find out the answer? Well, as Christians, the Bible should be our first and primary source to search for answers to moral questions. And, I applaud Andrew for trying to do this. In support of the concept that full human life begins at the moment of conception Andrew cites various Biblical passages. Here are examples of Bible passages that Andrew finds most convincing in this regard:
-
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” – Psalms 51:5
“Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” – Luke 1:36-37
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” – Psalms 139:13
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” – Jeremiah 1:5
For Andrew, these and other similar passages are conclusive evidence of the full value of humanity starting at the moment of conception. However, many honest Christians just don’t see it this way. Andrew cannot understand how anyone could honestly disagree with him after hearing out his arguments, but I for one am honestly not convinced. And, it’s not because I don’t want to know the truth as God wishes me to know it. It’s because I don’t see anywhere in these passages that Andrew cites where God makes the idea clear that the full value of humanity begins at the moment of conception.
Add to this the passage in Exodus 21:22-25 (discussed in some detail in my article above) that seems to support the conclusion that there is a spectrum as to the moral value of human life during embryological/fetal development. Certainly the writers of the LXX (3rd to 1st century B.C.) supported this conclusion hundred years before the Masoretic Text was written (7th to 10th centuries A.D.). And, while it is true that the Samaritan Pentateuch overlapped the production of the LXX, it is not true that the language of the Samaritan Pentateuch, regarding this passage in Exodus, is definitively unambiguous – certainly not unambiguous enough to discount the LXX translation of this passage. Taken together, all of the translations of this passage leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.
But what about the passages that Andrew cites? Don’t these passages clearly demonstrate God’s Design of the embryo from the very moment of conception? And, if so, is anyone at liberty to destroy or even hinder what God is forming? Well, look at the passage from Jeremiah 1:5 where God explains that he knew of the future existence of Jeremiah before he was even conceived. This passage simply speaks to the foreknowledge of God rather than to the moral value of a human embryo or a single fertilized cell. It really doesn’t answer the question as to if a deliberate ending of an an early pregnancy, such as after a few days of fertilization, is truly considered “murder” in the site of God. Also, despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the Angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails. But what about David claiming that he was “sinful from the moment of conception”? Well, it’s hard for me to definitively argue that this is clearly more than poetic license. After all, Jesus Himself noted that unless a person consciously knows the truth, and deliberately choses to do otherwise, there is no sin (John 9:41; John 15:22; James 4:17). How then can a single cell, or a small cluster of cells that is unable to think or act, be guilty of sin? – beyond the fact that we are conceived and born in a state of moral separation from God? Again, I fail to see such arguments as conclusive support for Andrew’s position that women who use the various forms of birth control described above are guilty of murder. Not even the founders of the SDA Church said anything about full humanity being instantly realized at the moment of conception. Yes, they were opposed to abortion (Link). However, modern birth control methods had yet to be invented. Would they really be opposed to such birth control methods? We cannot know, for sure, but I doubt it. Certainly there is no clear or definitive guidance regarding this particular question from the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, or the Founders of the SDA Church.
And, that’s my main concern here. At what point would I be willing to accuse a woman of being a murderer? – worthy of arrest and execution for deliberately taking the life of another human being? I just do not see the clear Biblical support, or support from any other inspired authority, for making such a charge when it comes to a single cell or a tiny ball-shaped cluster of cells. Sure, once the body of the baby is formed, and certainly once the brain of the baby is functional, things become much more clear in my own mind regarding the moral value of the baby as a full human being with all of the moral God-given rights thereof. It’s just that I honestly see no solid basis for accusing a woman of murder for blocking or terminating a pregnancy very early on following conception when the pregnancy consists only of a single cell or a small cluster of cells.
What is also most interesting is that, in his review of my article, Andrew gets a bit upset with me saying that I’m the one using “inflammatory language” such as “first-degree cold-blooded murder”. Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” (57:00) for women who use birth control that prevents embryonic implantation or who otherwise deliberately abort their babies. I’m actually really surprised by this particular argument since, if one truly views a full human life as beginning at the moment of conception, how can one argue that the deliberate termination of such a life is anything other than a deliberate pre-meditated murder? I mean, it’s almost as if Andrew doesn’t really believe what he’s saying regarding the full value of human life beginning at conception. He does discuss birth control pills or IUDs (starting around the 17-minute mark) that block the implantation of the embryo, thus aborting it, but claims that the mother’s lack of knowledge as to exactly when this happens means that she isn’t really guilty of premeditated murder. Really? It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face. And, contrary to Andrew’s claims, this has nothing at all to do with the government proving or doing anything. It has nothing to do with human governments at all. It has to do with the morality of a woman deliberately doing something that she knows will likely end pregnancy shortly after conception. If this act really is the taking of full human life, it is premeditated murder before God. There’s just no other term to use if full human life really does begin at the moment of conception.
Another relevant issue involves the use of IUDs and birth control pills to regulate hormonal issues that many women suffer. Andrew suggests that condom use would overcome such issues. However, even if condoms are always and correctly used with every act of intercourse, they have around a 3% failure rate (Link, Link) with some studies showing a failure rate of condoms of up to 16% per year (Link). In other words, even if a condom is being used by the husband every single time he has sex with his wife, at best there is still around a 3% chance of impregnating his wife within a given year. If she is also on hormonal birth control, that means that there is a ~3% chance of killing a real human being if full human life truly begins at conception. How is this a viable solution given the reality of Andrew’s position? Basically, what married couples would be left with is the Catholic concept of not having vaginal sex unless they are actually trying to get pregnant. Just because not every such effort would be successful, as Andrew points out in his video, is completely irrelevant to the required motive that would be necessary before couples could engage in sex without guilt – without the possibility of committing murder. In other worlds, no sexually active woman could ever take advantage of the benefits of hormonal birth control without the guilt of murder on her conscience – even if her husband always uses a condom (which is also less fun by the way).
Andrew also claims that I have done “nothing” to combat abortion, not even late-term abortion (i.e., an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week) – despite the fact that I’ve written this particular article calling late term abortion murder in no uncertain terms – and having directly prevented such an abortion when it was in my power to do so as a medical officer in the US Army (something that not even Andrew has been able to do). In fact, several church leaders have contacted me due to their favorable impression of my article on abortion, including religious liberty lawyers. Portions have even been included in religious liberty literature regarding this topic. The religious liberty lawyer for northern and central California conferences, Stephen Allred, included much of my article in the appendix of his book, “Do Justice: The Case for Biblical Social Justice” (Link). And no, he is no relation to the notorious abortion doctor Edward C. Allred, who outright murdered a great many late-term babies.
I guess Andrew feels that this doesn’t go nearly far enough. It’s just that I honestly don’t see his position as entirely accurate or conclusive or his approach to this topic as being more positive than negative. For me, Andrew’s position is without clear Biblical support regarding the claim that full humanity begins at conception and is inconsistent, as noted above, in that he argues for a lesser charge than “murder” for women who deliberately abort very early in pregnancy. He is often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful – at least not for me personally. It ends up harming the positive impact that one could have on an important topic, which is probably the reason that Andrew is largely ignored by the leadership of the SDA Church. Now, I understand that he believes that this issue is clearly black and white, to the point that no one his his/her right mind could honestly question his position. Perhaps, however, there are a few, like me, who just don’t have the same mental capacity to grasp what Andrew sees so clearly?
Now, I do appreciate the seriousness and righteousness of Andrew’s effort to save lives. While I may disagree with or fail to understand his arguments or his methods/approach, I do see his motives as being very good indeed! I have no problem with his sincerity or his passion to save lives. The attempt to save lives is a noble effort. However, the process, the method used, is also important. I mean, consider that Jesus, who was trying to save souls as well as lives, was much more patient and tactful in his approach – a pattern that would serve us all well to emulate as we deal with others who don’t see things in quite the same way. Yes, I know that Jesus did rarely call out exceptional cases with very harsh language. However, generally speaking, such methods should be avoided if at all possible – especially when dealing with fellow Christians who are sincere and who are actually trying to learn and to do what it right.
Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
God gave rational empirical “scientific” evidence to believe Noah’s message.
Many of the amazing discoveries of medical science in our day, to include the gift of vaccines and an understanding as to how the human immune system actually works, are not opposed to the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White did not opposed the use of vaccines). They are amazing gifts from God that should not be ignored or disregarded.
In this same line, Barbara O’Neill has made numerous false and misleading claims regarding various medical therapies – particularly regarding the treatment of serious conditions like cancer. She does get some things right, but the things she gets wrong significantly overshadow the things she gets right and have significant hurt people. For example, she wraps people who have cancer (which she falsely claims is caused by fungal infections, promoted by antiobiotics and other pharmaceuticals – Link) in towels soaked in baking soda as a means to treat their cancers when such treatments do not help cancer patients in the least. (Link). Yet, she she makes a lot of money peddling these and other such worthless “therapies” to the gullible. She speaks with great confidence and assurance about things that she doesn’t remotely understand since she has no medical training. It’s not the GC or Church leadership or physicians like me making money off of “Big Pharma”. Rather, it’s the snake-oil salesmen like Peter McCullough and Barbara O’Neill, and others like them, who are making quite a lot of money selling their worthless natural remedies and conspiracy theories to their worldwide audiences. Consider that her Misty Mountain Health Retreat near Kempsey charged clients as much as $2,450 per person for a one-week stay and $8,800 for two people for two weeks. She also sells numerous books and travels around giving paid conferences and seminars. Let’s just say that she makes a very good living doing what she does (Link).
It’s not like I’m opposed to natural remedies that actually work, of course. I’m just opposed to those who promote “natural remedies” just because they’re supposedly “natural” when they don’t actually do what they’re claimed to do by those who have no understanding of medical science who make money selling their “remedies” to the gullible and the desperate. If you want to see some natural remedies promoted by someone who actually does known what he’s talking about, look up the YouTube videos put out by the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult.
Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
While recommending the vaccines, the vaccine statements clearly left the decision to vaccinate, or not, to the individual. They had nothing to do with government funding (yet another conspiracy theory). These statements were issued in an honest effort to save lives, not to make money. The “medical minds” at the BoT Symposium generally support anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists like Peter McCullough who are known for promoting misleading or downright false claims regarding the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines.
