Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse wrote (on his own Blog):
The question of whether natural selection can craft complex adaptions, which Sean is so keen to discuss, is actually both trivial and unimportant. Of course it can craft complexity, what on earth is the reason for thinking it cannot? Proofs of concept are easy to come by. The important question is whether it did craft complex adaptations in natural history. There is rather a lot of evidence to suggest that it did, as I discuss briefly at the end of this post. Not the least of that evidence are the routine successes of adaptationist reasoning in biology.
The reason for thinking that RM/NS cannot “craft complexity”, at least not beyond very low levels of functional complexity, is because sequence space simply is not set up like it would need to be before any “crafting” could take place. In other words, your argument that the beneficial steppingstones in Lake Superior are all closely spaced and lined up in a neat little row simply doesn’t reflect reality. They are not lined up in this manner and there is no rational reason to think that this might have been the case. Your entire theory is, therefore, dependent upon an assumption that doesn’t reflect known reality.
As I noted during the debate, if massive amounts of physical evidence say something happened, but some abstract mathematical model says it cannot happen, then it is the model and not the evidence that should be discarded.
The problem here is that you’re the one presenting a mathematical model that doesn’t represent known empirical reality. My position, on the other hand, is backed up by real observations as to the nature of sequence space. It is therefore your model that is based on an erroneous mathematical model, not mine.
There are three obvious reasons why probability theory has no role to play in validating the creative abilities of natural selection. The first is that there are so many unquantifiable variables in natural history that a meaningful calculation would simply be impossible. Probability calculations take place in the context of a properly defined probability space. This means that you must have a grasp on all the things that might have happened in lieu of the event you are studying, and you must have some basis for assigning a probability distribution to that collection of events. (For example, if you want to know the probability of rolling a one with a six-sided die, you need to know not only that there are six possible outcomes, but also that the die is not loaded in a way that makes certain outcomes more likely than others). Good luck trying to define the appropriate probability space for studying the long-term development of natural history.
The size of sequence space is definitely known for various levels of functional complexity. Also, there is very very good evidence as to the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in that space. Finally, there is also very good evidence as to the distribution clusters of beneficial sequences within beneficial islands within sequence space – and their minimum likely distances relative to the other islands within that space.
What you are basically saying here is that there is no way to estimate how long it will take for the evolutionary mechanism of RM/NS to produce anything at a given level of functional complexity. Everything you believe is based on “circumstantial evidence” which is largely irrelevant to the actual evolutionary mechanism. In other words, your evidence is largely interpreted as what you think an intelligent designer would or would not do – not upon what your mechanism could or could not do. In short, there really is no science or predictability, from your perspective, with regard to the creative limits or potential of your mechanism. You simply don’t know how to calculate or estimate such potential or limitations. Where then is your “science” when it comes to your assumed mechanism in particular?
The second reason is that it is not clear what you should be finding the probability of. Should we determine the probability of evolving the modern vertebrate eye, or do we care instead about the probability of evolving some kind of organ for using light to glean information about the environment? Any specific adaptation might have a very small probability, but the probability of evolving some representative of a class to which that adaptation belongs could be rather large. So even if you could define an appropriate space, you would still have the problem of determining the relevant event within the space.
Any and all discoveries of new beneficial island or steppingstones count as success. The problem is that all of the various potential solutions to the problem at hand are very far away in sequence space. There is no solution that is significantly closer or more evolvable this side of a practical eternity of time at higher levels of functional complexity – all potentially solutions are far far too far away. That is why your argument that “The probability of evolving some representative of a class to which that adaptation belongs could be rather large” is simply not true. The probability simply is not improved to any significant degree by including all possible solutions to a problem within sequence space. That’s the key point here – all possible solutions, all possible beneficial steppingstones of any kind whatsoever, are too far away from any given starting point within sequence space at higher levels of functional complexity.
This leads naturally into the third problem. Let us suppose you could perform a relevant probability calculation and the result was a very small number. So what? What would that prove? Unlikely events occur all the time, after all. Any particular outcome of billions of years of evolution likely occurs with very small probability, but that is simply irrelevant to determining the credibility of evolution. The particular sequence of heads and tails you get when flipping a coin five hundred times is extremely unlikely, but something had to happen. The endpoints of eons of evolution are very much like that.
I’m genuinely surprised to see a mathematician with an interest in biological evolution produce this common, but mistaken, argument. It’s like saying that one shouldn’t be surprised if Arnold Schwarzenegger happens to win the California Lottery 10 times in a row. After all, unlikely events happen all the time!
You see, this argument, as presented by Dr. Rosenhouse, undermines science in general. It undermines the very concept of predictive value and estimating the likelihood that a particular hypothesis was actually responsible or the true explanation for a particular event.
As another example, let’s say that there are 10 randomly distributed steppingstones, each measuring one meter square, within Lake Superior. Is it possible that a blind swimmer might swim directly from one to the other in a straight line without missing it? Yes, it is possible, but is it likely? Is it possible that this blind swimmer might swim directly to all 10 steppingstones in a row without a single error? Yes, this is also possible, but is it likely?
You see, science isn’t based on what is possible (almost anything is possible). Science is based on what is most likely… which is why this particular point that Dr. Rosenhouse presents highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of the very basis of science itself.
Now, this is the point where ID folks might point to William Dembski, and start going on about “complex specified information.” They might argue that while certain events are of the “something had to happen” sort, others are not. If five hundred heads came up, you would reject the hypothesis that a fair coin had been flipped in a fair manner. Indeed, but that is simply a bad analogy. Dembski’s attempts to define his notion of “specificity” in a useful, non-vague way that can be applied to biology (or much of anything for that matter) have been entirely unsuccessful. The relentless use of the term “complex specified information” by ID proponents, as though this term actually meant anything, is an example of what I meant in saying that evolution’s critics rely frequently on misapplied jargon.
The concept of functional or meaningful complexity is defined by many others besides Dembski – to include a number of mainstream scientists. And, the concept is not too hard to understand. Basically, it is based on the minimum size requirement to achieve a particular type of function, combined with the limitations or minimum flexibility allowed for the characters in the sequence as far as their arrangement is concerned. This is where the concept of “specificity” comes into play. It simply isn’t enough to have all the right characters for a sequence. These characters must also be properly arranged, relative to each other in 3D space, before the function in question can be realized to any useful or selectable degree of functionality.
I fail to see how the meaning for this concept is unclear? It is very clear. It is so clear in fact that small children can understand it. And, what is interesting and relevant here, is what a linear increase in the minimum size and/or specificity requirement of a meaningful/functional sequence does to the overall ratio of potentially meaningful/beneficial sequences in sequence space with the same minimum structural threshold requirements – i.e., the ratio of these sequences is reduced, exponentially, relative to the number of non-meaningful/non-functional sequences of any and all kinds.
I don’t know why Sean makes such a fetish of probability. During the debate he said that my refusal to supply a probability calculation somehow rendered evolution unscientific, which is rather bizarre. Probability theory is wonderful stuff (my first book was mostly about probability theory) but it is hardly the last word on what is science and what is not.
Again, as mentioned in our debate, science is and must be based on probability in all of its claims. Your notion that something only needs to be shown to be possible to be a scientific conclusion is simply not a scientific argument. One must also demonstrate the likelihood, not just the possibility, of a particular event to occur within a given span of time. If you can’t do this, then you just don’t have a scientific theory with regard to the creative potential of your Darwinian mechanism at various levels of functional complexity. You simply don’t know and cannot say how it will work or how long it will take for your mechanism to do anything at any level of functional complexity. All you have are bold claims, unsupported by either demonstration or relevant statistical calculations or extrapolations, regarding the creative potential of your mechanism.
I certainly agree that natural selection has never been observed to produce something as complex as the vertebrate eye. Intelligent agents have never been observed to bring universes into being or to create life from scratch, but Sean has no trouble believing that occurred. The fact remains that there is voluminous circumstantial evidence supporting the claim that natural selection can in principle and has in natural history produced complex adaptations. When you contrast this with the perfect vacuum of evidence supporting the existence of intelligent designers who can do what ID folks say they can do, it becomes clear why scientists are all but unanimous in preferring evolution over intelligent design.
What circumstantial evidence are you talking about that actually suggests that your mechanism of RM/NS did what you claim it did? Remember, arguing for common descent isn’t the same thing as arguing that your mechanism was responsible for the required changes over time. These arguments are often confused by evolutionists, but they simply aren’t the same thing.
As far as your argument that ID has never been observed to do certain things, therefore extrapolations are necessary, I agree – hence the title of my book, “Turtles All the Way Down.”
As the title of my book suggests, it’s either “turtles all the way up” or “turtles all the way down”. You claim that a mindless mechanism is the most likely explanation for all that exists while I claim that an intelligence source is the most likely explanation. In order to determine which claim is most likely true, one is required to extrapolate from very limited information. However, I believe that a reasonable extrapolation is possible based on what is currently known about which way the turtles are going.
In other words, is RM/NS known to be more or less creative than what known intelligent agents (i.e., humans) are able to produce? The answer is quite clear. The mechanism of RM/NS is far far less creative, in a given amount of time (observable time) than is ID. Intelligence can create very complex machines in very short order. This simply isn’t true for RM/NS.
The obvious question is, why not? Why is ID so much quicker than RM/NS beyond very low levels of functional complexity? Why does the mechanism of RM/NS show a truly exponential decline in creative ability with each linear step up the ladder of functional complexity? Well, the answer is quite clear for anyone who has carefully considered the nature of sequence space and noticed the exponential decline in potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial and isolated nature of clusters or islands of sequences with the same type of function – and how this isolation becomes exponentially more and more dramatic with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.
This observation can be extrapolated to get a very good idea as to the limitations of mindless mechanisms like RM/NS.
The same is true of ID. There are various levels of intelligence and knowledge. The ancient peopled would have considered some of our technology “miraculous” from their perspective. And, there is therefore no reason to doubt that a few thousand years from now discoveries will be made that will seem truly miraculous from our current perspective.
Therefore, it seems like there is no theoretical limit for the creative potential of intelligent design, while there is a very clear limitation, that is actually measurable, for RM/NS.
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
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.
