Hi Nick, welcome back. You write: Your arguments and probability calculations are

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

Hi Nick, welcome back.

You write:

Your arguments and probability calculations are based on the effects of many simultaneous mutations, with no opportunities for selection between them. Thus, under your model, large moves in sequence space have to happen all-at-once. Your criticisms of that model are valid, but they say nothing about the evolutionary model, which is stepwise.

You seem to have a mistaken view of sequence space, islands within sequence space, and how mutational changes can move around within this space.

To illustrate the problem here, imagine that our population starts out on an island within a higher level of sequence space. This island is made up of many protein sequences that can all produce the same qualitative type of function to at least some selectable advantage. Along the edges of the island are sequences that are marginally beneficial while in the center of the island are sequences that are strongly beneficial for the particular type of function in question (creating a peak for the island with exponentially declining slopes toward the surrounding ocean). Surrounding this island, on all sides, are sequences that are not beneficial at all. They may be functionally detrimental to one degree or another, or they may be functionally neutral, but they aren’t selectably beneficial.

Now, say our population happens to land on the edge of such an island. A selectable advantage is suddenly realized. So, this population will be preferentially maintained by natural selection. After this point, it is very easy to move the population rapidly up the slopes of the island to the very peak of the island in relatively short order (which has the effect of reducing the size of the island that will be considered “beneficial” for the population by natural selection). The reason for this is that the sequences with a stepwise increase in selectability are very closely spaced on this island. So, improving functionality of a given type on a particular island isn’t a problem for RM/NS – even by mutations that only produce single character changes (point mutations).

The problems, of course, happen when one tries to leave the island and find other islands within sequence space. In order to do this, mutations, of various types, start to explore the sequences in the ocean around the island. Point mutations take very small steps off the island. If these point mutations land on neutral (or near neutral) areas of the ocean, they are not immediately deleted by natural selection. They can wander around a bit looking for other islands along a “random walk”. If these point mutations land on strongly detrimental regions of the surrounding ocean, natural selection quickly deletes them and the random walk starts over from the starting island. Of course, this “start over” process takes time.

Now, imagine a scenario where the next closest beneficially selectable island in sequence space is a Hamming distance of 50 non-selectable mutations (character changes) away from the starting island within a sequence space that holds 1000 character sequences. How long would it take to get to that next island? Say that your population on the starting island is at a steady state of 1e31 (the size of the number of all the bacteria on Earth). Say that our mutation rate is one mutation per 1000 character sequence per generation, and our generation time is 10 minutes. The number of non-beneficial sequences within a Hamming distance of 50 within this sequence space is ~1e65. Given these parameters, our population could explore a maximum of 1e31 sequences within the surrounding ocean in each generation. Of course, this means, on average, that it would take our population about 1e34 generations, on average, to reach an island that is just 50 character differences away from the starting island (i.e., ~1e29 years).

But, you argue, any mutations that are detrimental will be selected against my natural selection, which is true. However, this doesn’t improve the odds of success. All natural selection does in such a case is bring back to random walk sequence to the original starting point. The effect that this has is to increase the searches very close to the starting point island. However, it doesn’t really help to find something that is 50 mutational steps away any faster. If anything, it increases the average number of mutations required to achieve success.

In this light, let’s consider the rest of your specific arguments:

This doesn’t matter, since in evolution, all the mutations don’t occur at the same time. Each is exposed to long periods of selection, drift, etc. The real process is that after a substitution happens in a population (either beneficial, beneficial but with some negative side effects, or neutral, or nearly neutral but slightly deleterious), a variety of new mutations accumulate over subsequent generations. Some of these mutations are neutral, some are slightly deleterious, and some compensate for some deleterious feature introduced by a previous substitution. Compensatory substitutions, in particular, are crucial to include in the model. Creationist arguments, including yours, universally ignore the role they play.

My model does not ignore compensatory mutations at all. The effect of compensatory mutations is simply to reverse the random walk of a sequence back onto the original island from which it started. That’s all. Compensatory mutations do not help to reduce the average time required to find a qualitatively novel island within sequence space.

Beyond this, I’ll point out that I’m not arguing that mutations need to occur at the same time. They don’t. Mutations can and generally do occur one at a time and are generally comprised of single-character mutations. Multi-character mutations (indels) can also occasionally occur, and these types of mutations can make long leaps into the ocean of sequence space, far away from the original island. However, the odds of successfully landing on any part of any other island within sequence space is not statistically improved. The average time to success is still the same.

Also, proteins are much more flexible than, say, English. It is commonplace to find protein families where 50% or even 80% of the amino acids have changed, yet the structure and function remain the same. Not so for English. Protein evolution is more like language evolution, where most / all of the words can be modified, the resulting languages are incomprehensible to each other, but the same message can be communicated via different sentence, each within the overall context of its language.

What you’re talking about here are entirely different non-connected islands within sequence space that have the same type of functionality. In other words, it is possible to say the same thing in a very different way. The same is true with protein-based systems. It is possible to produce the same qualitative type of function with very different protein sequences. That, however, doesn’t solve the problem.

Beyond this, it is not generally true that most of the amino acid residues of a protein can be modified without a loss of function. As already explained, most protein-based systems suffer an exponential loss of function for each individual amino acid residue change in the sequence. It is for this reason that most of sequence space is simply not functional nor are most sequences even capable of forming stable protein folds. It is also for this reason that the beneficial islands in sequence space have sharp peaks and steep slopes.

Your arguments are rather like arguing that French and Romanian could not have evolved from a common ancestor, because if you take a French sentence and randomly mutate most of the letters in each of the words, you get something incomprehensible. This is nothing like the actual proposed historical process, and so is not a rebuttal of it. Language space is surely huge just like sequence space, and it is surely true that most random assemblages of sounds don’t mean anything in any modern or extinct language, yet languages have evolved nonetheless, through a long process of step-by-step changes, with the participating humans mostly or completely oblivious.

This is a mistaken analogy for the very reason that humans are intelligent and can make leaps within sequence space that cannot be made by random mutations in a comparable amount of time. You mistakenly assume that human languages evolve via the same mechanism as Darwinian evolution. They do not.

Beyond this, different human languages are effectively the same with the exception that different letters and words are used for the very same ideas. The same can be true of protein-based systems. Note, however, that the problems for evolutionary progress from lower to higher level systems is the same for human languages as it is for protein-based systems. As in the human-language system, there are many possible ways of saying the same thing. However, these many possible ways of saying the same thing get farther and farther apart in sequence space as the thing that is trying to be said increases in the required minimum number of characters that have to be used to get the idea across. The very same thing is true of protein-based systems. While there are many very different options of producing the very same type of system, these options become more and more widely spaced in sequence space with each step up the ladder of minimum structural threshold requirements. That is why it doesn’t matter what “language” once uses, one cannot get from a given higher level island within sequence space to any other, regardless of the “language” that would be recognized in a given environment, in a reasonable amount of time.

Another problem here is that you seem to imagine that going from lower-level to higher-level systems is a smooth process where there are no significant gaps between lower-level and higher-level islands within different levels of sequence space. That’s just not a correct vision of sequence space (human language or otherwise). The lower level islands are also separated from higher level islands by gaps comprised of non-beneficial sequences. And, these minimum gap distances become linearly wider and wider with each step up the ladder of functional complexity.

Other examples of this mistake in your comment:

The reason for this is because there is an “experimentally observed exponential decline in the fraction of functional proteins with increasing numbers of mutations (Bloom et al. 2005).”

…and again:

Bloom goes on to point out that, “Experiments have demonstrated that proteins can be extremely tolerant to single substitutions; for example, 84% of single-residue mutants of T4 lysozyme and 65% of single-residue mutants of lac repressor were scored as functional. However, for multiple substitutions, the fraction of functional proteins decreases roughly exponentially with the number of substitutions, although the severity of this decline varies among proteins.”

…and again:

In short, most mutations that affect a region or island cluster of thermodynamically stable sequences in sequence space are destabilizing in such a way that each additional mutation has an exponentially destabilizing effect. Obviously, this means that the vast majority of sequences in sequence space would not produce viably stable proteins.

It is true that most mutations have this effect, but this doesn’t matter, since they happen for the most part one at a time, and (1) selection removes the severely deleterious mutations, and (2) the slightly deleterious ones can later be corrected by compensatory substitutions.

While both of your points here are true, they really don’t help to lessen the average time required to fine a novel beneficial island within sequence space (as already explained). My point in referencing the experiments of Bloom et. al. was to show you how the islands of beneficial sequences actually appear in sequence space. They are islands with steep slopes and sharply pointed peaks as I originally said.

The “vast majority of sequences” therefore don’t matter, since evolution doesn’t have to search through all possible sequences in order to explain the data. To explain the data, it just has to, *sometimes*, find *some* of the paths between proteins with different-but-related sequences but the same function, and, occasionally, find *some* of the paths between proteins with different-but-related sequences and different functions. It doesn’t have to do it *all* the time for *everything*, because the data indicates that failures are common (extinctions are observed, imperfect adaptations are observed), and the data indicate that biology doesn’t occupy all of functional space or sequence space, just little bits of it.

There are two misconceptions here. The first is, as already explained, that moving around between sequences that are located on the same island with the same type of function is very easy for RM/NS. This is not a problem whatsoever. However, this doesn’t get you a new type of function. Such mutations stay on the very same island and produce the very same type of function with “different-but-related sequences”. As you know, this isn’t the same thing as finding a different island with a qualitatively new type of function.

Now, you also claim that “occasionally” some of the paths between “different-but-related protein sequences” can be found with “different functions”. This is the entire question at hand. What is the average expected time for such a feat to be realized? – at various levels of functional complexity? You simply don’t know since you believe that, regardless of the level of functional complexity, that closely-spaced steppingstone islands exist somewhere in sequence space whereby random mutations can actually get from one novel island to the next without having to make much of a random walk. This claim of yours (identical to the claim of Jason Rosenhouse), simply doesn’t reflect what is known about sequence space at various levels of functional complexity. There simply are no such closely-space islands at higher levels of functional complexity that are actually known, and no reason to think that such a situation will ever be discovered.

But, you write, “The data indicate that biology doesn’t occupy all of functional space or sequence space, just little bits of it.”

That’s just the point. Since a population can only occupy the tiniest fraction of sequence space at a higher level of functional complexity, the finding of novel islands at the same level or higher involves crossing vast gaps of non-beneficial sequences that do in fact exist between each one of these higher-level islands and the next closest island. And that, my friend, is the fundamental problem for the ToE.

It also suggests that as sequence space increases in size by 20^N, the ratio of viable vs. non-viable sequences, not just systems, decreases exponentially. – Sean Pitman

This is just the all-at-once fallacy repeated again.

No, it isn’t. What it means is that your one-at-a-time mutations simply cannot cross the resulting gap distances in a reasonable amount of time beyond very low levels of functional complexity. It’s the very same problem regardless of if there are many random mutations at a time or just one random mutation at a time. The odds of success are the same.

You conclude with:

And, this effect only gets exponentially worse and worse with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. – Sean Pitman

This is raw assertion, not something your references say, and you haven’t defined the “ladder of functional complexity” anyway. Most of protein complexity involves fusing protein domains or evolving binding sites between them, these are pretty trivial processes.

I have defined the “ladder of functional complexity” (as have others in literature) as the minimum size and specificity of the parts required to produce a given type of function. In other words, some protein-based systems have a minimum amino acid residue requirement of only a dozen or so specifically arranged residues, while other protein-based systems have a minimum requirement of several thousand specifically arranged residues. These systems are on very different levels of functional complexity. And, the sequences spaces needed to hold these different systems are also very different when it comes to the ratio of beneficial vs. non-beneficial and the resulting distances between the beneficial islands of proteins within these sequence spaces.

As far your comments on junk-DNA, that’s a separate topic. I’ll have to respond at a later time.

FLAGELLUM

See the table at Panda’s Thumb from Pallen & Matzke 2006. There is a lot more to the argument than just the 10 proteins homologous to nonflagellar T3SS.

I’ve responded to your argument extensively at:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html

There is no point in discussing this until we resolve your misconception about the ability of single proteins to evolve along narrow paths through huge sequence space, in some cases retaining the same function, in other cases changing function.

Those paths exist. Phylogenies of proteins are one of the proofs. The branches of the phylogenies are actual statistical estimates of these paths. They exist both for cases where all the proteins at the tips have the same function, and for cases where some of the proteins at tips of the tree have different functions.

Phylogenies say nothing of the gap distances between the proposed steppingstones and how the distance between these steppingstones can be traversed along “narrow paths” via random mutations – which is the main problem with your flagellar evolution papers. You simply wave your hand and blindly assume that the gap distances are small enough because of the phylogenetic relationships or similarities between proteins within different systems. You see, the problem isn’t with the similarities. The problem for your mechanism is with the number of required non-selectable differences to get from one system, from one steppingstone, to the next. Phylogenetic similarities do suggest a common origin of some kind, but they do not tell you that the mechanism of RM/NS was in fact capable of producing the required differences – a key mistake on the part of evolutionists such as yourself.

For example, the steppingstones you list off in your flagellar evolution pathway are each far too far apart in sequence space for random mutations to get from any one to any other in a reasonable amount of time. The required non-selectable changes are simply far far too numerous for your theory to be tenable. Beyond this, as confirmation of this problem, not one of your proposed steps from one steppingstone to the next has been demonstrated in the lab. If these steppingstones are truly as close together as you seem to imagine, such a demonstration should be no problem. Take the wild-type system for one steppingstone and show how, given the appropriate selective environment, the next steppingstone in your sequence is actually reachable.

Table of Contents

1 Sean Pitman Also Commented
- 1.1 Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
2 Related

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:

“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.