Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.
Although I am certainly no expert on geology, I do have expertise in genetics, and your suggestions about speciation being just a rearrangement of genetic material is woefully ignorant.
It’s always nice to have an anonymous expert on hand. Tell me now, with your expertise in genetics, upon what is speciation based? Can you cite any example of “macroevolution”, in action, that has been directly observed to be the result of the evolution of qualitatively novel genetic information within the gene pool of any living thing? – beyond very very low levels of functional complexity? In other words, do you know of a single example of observed evolution in action that produces a qualitatively novel functional system that requires, at minimum, at least 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues?
If so, I’d love to see the reference. If not, then upon what is your definition of “macroevolution” based?
I’ve asked many “experts” this question and I’ve yet to receive anything more substantial than just-so stories about how the evolution of truly novel complex systems must have happened within various gene pools. The problem, of course, is that none of these “stories” is backed up by actual observation or relevant statistical analysis regarding any viable mechanism outside of intelligent design. Perhaps you can be the first?
I have seen this concept suggested elsewhere, and only from those who have not thoroughly investigated the topic. Of course, to get the rapid changes you feel must have occurred in such a short span of time, you have to invoke a theory like this.
That’s right. Rapid phenotypic variation simply isn’t a problem when there is no need to evolve qualitatively new types of functional systems within a given gene pool that weren’t already there in the ancestral gene pool to begin with…
Extensive inversions and translocations have rendered many closely related species in this genus reproductively isolated, leading to many local endemics. But to posit this as the way that all speciation occurs is simply ludicrous.
But I never said that this is the way that all speciation occurs. What I did say is that there is no example of “macroevolution” in action that is based on the production of qualitatively novel information being added to the gene pool that wasn’t already there within the ancestral gene pool… at least not beyond very very low levels of functional complexity (i.e., the 1000aa level). There isn’t a single example of evolution at this level of functional complexity in all of literature – not one example. If you do know of such an example, by all means present it. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’re simply blowing hot air without any empirical evidence beyond just-so story telling…
You need to go back to school and take a competent genetics course and then maybe one on molecular systematics. I mean this with no disrespect, but you need to realize that your competency in this area is very low.
Forgive me for my apparent ignorance, but I’d be most grateful if you would educate me just a little bit as to what I’ve missed in my own studies of genetics and molecular systematics. Please do explain to me the mechanism by which “macroevolution” can take place, even given billions or even trillions of years of time, beyond very very low levels of functional complexity beyond that which was already there in the ancestral gene pool of phenotypic options… and good luck with that 😉
As for the “finches†of the Galápagos, we hardly see evidence for a simple rearrangement of genetic material. These birds are so different from any other birds that there has been a long-standing disagreement over how they should be classified—a difficulty that remains today. The following quote from Wikipedia (not the best source, but a ready one, and accurate enough in this case) illustrates the scope of this problem:
“For some decades taxonomists have placed these birds in the family Emberizidae with the New World sparrows and Old World buntings (Sulloway 1982). However, the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy puts Darwin’s finches with the tanagers (Monroe and Sibley 1993), and at least one recent work follows that example (Burns and Skutch 2003). The American Ornithologists’ Union, in its North American check-list, places the Cocos Island Finch in the Emberizidae but with an asterisk indicating that the placement is probably wrong (AOU 1998–2006); in its tentative South American check-list, the Galápagos species are incertae sedis, of uncertain place (Remsen et al. 2007).†Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin‘s_finches
I could give you literally hundreds of examples of this sort of thing, and your explanation just isn’t relevant at all in these cases.
And I could give you hundreds of examples of hybrids between different “species” groups, and even different family and occasional intraordinal hybrids indicating a shared common ancestral gene pool without any substantial novel functionality that was not originally contained within the ancestral gene pool.
Ornithologists, in particular, give the label “species†to very minor phenotypic differences in birds. A sparrow with a different sized spot or streak on the breast or around the eye is labeled as a different species. There are even examples of phenotypically identical animals that are given different species names based on functionally neutral genetic differences.
Darwin’s finches represent an example of macroevolution by almost anyone’s definition.
Oh really? Then you’ll have no trouble explaining what the specific novel functionality is compared to the ancestral gene pool?
Another way of looking at why your interpretation is so far off is to consider dog breeds. Aside from physical difficulties, all breeds of dogs are interfertile, but look at how different they are from one another. And these differences are due in many cases to one or several small mutations. To keep the dog story in perspective, first realize that the current theory of dog origins (which has archaeological evidence to support it) has them being domesticated sometime between 7,000 BC (from where we have the best evidence) to possibly as far back as 30,000 BC. Now, granted, we all have trouble with the idea of something happening over 30,000 years ago, so let’s just assume the 7,000 BC figure is correct (of course, you would see this as problematic as it is pre-flood).
Most modern domesticated breeds of dogs were produced in the last 300 years. And, most of the phenotypic differences are not based on mutations, but on simple Mendelian variation within the underlying gene pool of phenotypic options that were originally available within the shared ancestral gene pool of all modern dog varieties. Some mutations are involved, of course, but these mutations did not produce qualitatively novel functionality. Rather, they altered the degree of functionality of some pre-existing function – such as the relative size of various features. The dwarfed legs of dachshunds, for example, are the result of a mutation that disrupts a previous function. According to Parker, et. al. in a 2009 issue of the journal Science, this is what happened in dogs (along with its relevance to mice and men):
We hypothesize that atypical expression of the FGF4 transcript in the chondrocytes causes inappropriate activation of one or more of the fibroblast growth factor receptors such as FGFR3. An activating mutation in FGFR3 is responsible for >95% of achondrodysplasia cases, the most common form of dwarfism in humans, and 60 to 65% of hypochondrodysplasia cases, a human syndrome that is more similar in appearance to breed-defining chondrodysplasia. . . . FGF4 induces the expression of sprouty genes, which interfere with the ubiquitin-mediated degradation of the FGF receptors including FGFR3, and overexpression of the sprouty genes can cause chondrodysplastic phenotypes in both mice and humans.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5943/995.abstract
This particular type of mutation, while certainly resulting in a dramatic phenotypic and functional difference, is not really the production of some qualitatively novel functional system within the underlying gene pool of genetic options. Rather, it is the result of an quantitative alteration of a pre-existing functional system. Such mutations are very common and can occur very rapidly because there are so many ways to disrupt the performance of a pre-existing system.
Now I think we can all agree that artificial selection is a much more powerful force than natural selection.
This isn’t true at all. Based on phenotypic selection alone, be it a mindless selection process or a human-based selection process, the realization of a qualitatively novel system of function is still statistically untenable beyond the 1000aa threshold this side of a practical eternity of time. There simply is no real advantage to “artificial selection” over “natural selection” when it comes to producing true “macroevolution” of something qualitatively new and functional complex within the gene pool itself.
So, with this much more powerful force humans have produced numerous distinct breeds of dogs, but no one new species. Why is that? According you your line of reasoning hundreds (or even thousands) of new species have arisen post-flood by natural selection alone working on some kind of genetic rearrangement process. The same process should have been occurring in dogs, and yet there is not one single new species of dog! I could tell the same story with a dozen other domesticated species.
Again, this is due to inconsistent definitions of what is and what is not a “species”. What qualifies as a “species” in the wild does not given even more dramatic phenotypic differences between different dog breeds. Also, note again that modern breeds of dogs share a common ancestral gene pool that is no more than a few hundred years old. What is also interesting to note here is that wolves and domesticated dogs are classified in different species groups as are foxes and coyotes. Yet, all can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring (except, perhaps, when it comes to foxes in which case there are no verified hybrids with dogs or coyotes as far as I’m aware)… indicating that there really is no significant qualitative functional difference between these various gene pools.
The problem we have here is that you are so quick to tear down the process of macroevolution on the one hand, and then are willing to embrace it again to try and explain the rapid diversification of taxa that must have occurred post-flood. And you are accusing me of blind faith when I am willing to believe the Bible account more on faith than evidence. Well, my friend, what you are doing with genetics and evolutionary theory is just as much a form of blind faith. There are so many holes in your genetic rearrangement leading to speciation theory that I am astonished! Can we talk about something else that you know more about?
I think you think you know more than you really do about the limits of evolutionary progress via RM/NS. Speciation, when it does occur, is not the result of “macroevolution” in the sense that nothing that is truly functional novel evolves within the gene pool that wasn’t already there within the ancestral gene pool. Losses or changes in degree of functionality can be realized. Even the evolution of truly novel functions at low levels of complexity can be realized. However, nothing that can truly be described as “macro” evolution can be realized this side of a practical eternity of time. It has to do with a problem of an exponential decline in the density of potentially beneficial systems that exist in sequence space at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
I am sorry of I have appeared unkind in my comments here, but you have truly caught me by surprise. I hope you will take the effort to educate yourself a bit better in genetics, especially as it intersects evolutionary biology. Even if your theory were the explanation for all new species, the process, where we do know it has occurred, takes much longer than a few thousand years.
Such statements are not based on an actual understanding of the underlying functional genetic changes needed to produce the phenotypic effect being investigated. I dare say that if you really understood the underlying genetics like you think you do, you’d know that long periods of time simply aren’t needed. What you think is “macro” evolution is really nothing of the sort….
Of course, if you still think otherwise, by all means, share some actual specific information along these lines that proves me wrong…
But of course, your “faith†is not affected by the validity of the actual claims made by the Biblical authors regarding the physical world. You claim to be an “agnostic†when it comes to the validity of the actual empirical claims of the Biblical authors. It really doesn’t matter if the Bible is literally true or not – right? Your faith can go with the flow. Why then don’t you believe in the superior credibility of the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? Amazing… – Sean Pitman
Wow, you seem to really understand me so well. Actually, my faith in God’s word does not include a faith in any one interpretation. The way my faith works in relation to the Bible is to recognize that the writers were humans inspired by God to write these accounts. Sometimes, in that process, a writer may not know or understand all the facts of the original story, so he writes it to the best of his ability. What my faith allows for is that if the writer of Genesis believed the flood was literally a worldwide flood, it bothers me not the least to still have faith in the Genesis account even if the actual event might turned out to have been local.
And, using this logic, how do you tell the difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? After all, if your faith in the Bible is not at all dependent upon an accurate description of empirical reality, why choose the Bible as being somehow superior to anything else?
I see the problems with the flood akin to those that sometimes occurred with EGW’s inspired writings and utterances. Case in point:
In 1847, James and Ellen White published a tract in which it is announced that she had seen a vision of the planets in our solar system:
“At our conference in Topsham, Maine, last Nov., Ellen had a vision of the handy works of God. She was guided to the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their Moons, etc. It is well known, that she knew nothing of astronomy, and could not answer one question in relation to the planets, before she had this vision.â€Now some people use this event to claim that EGW obviously was not the inspired prophet the church has claimed her to be or she would have gotten her facts correct.
This is a common argument, but it is good to consider a few key facts of this case:
1. In her own account she simply states, “I was wrapt in a vision of GOD’s glory, and for the first time had a view of other planets.†Neither names of planets nor number of moons is even hinted at in this one and only certain account of the vision written by Mrs. White herself.
2. In what may possibly, though we think improbably, be a reference to this 1846 Topsham vision, she simply states, “The Lord has given me a view of other worlds…. Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons.†But she does not identify that “world.â€
3. James White states, regarding her, “She was guided to the planets, Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. After she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their Moons, etc.†He does not state that she gave names to the planets, or that she numbered the moons she saw, much less that she said a particular planet had a certain number of moons.
4. Mrs. Truesdail says, “After counting aloud the moons of Jupiter, and soon after those of Saturn, she gave a beautiful description of the rings of the latter.†But Mrs. Truesdail does not profess to tell us what Mrs. White actually said, or whether the listeners simply concluded that the moons being counted were those of Jupiter and of Saturn because of certain general descriptions. Only Loughborough presumes to state just what she said.
5. Even Loughborough, quoting Bates, does not credit her with naming any planets, but only describing them, and then stating, “I see†such and such a number of moons. Bates did the identifying of planets. And may we not reasonably suppose that James White quite naturally accepted Bates’s interpretation as correct? Mrs. White left nothing on record to indicate that she even knew what were the names of the “worlds†she saw. Hence, it is altogether reasonable to conclude that James White’s statement simply reflects the conclusion that he and others reached as a result of Bates’s interpretation of her descriptive statements.
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/EGWHCc07.html
There are good reasons for the vision given as it was given. Also, the perspective of the observer in vision is important to consider, as are the details to the internal consistency of the message of the vision. The same thing is true of the Biblical account of origins when it comes to biblical credibility and a rational belief in its Divine origin…
I just don’t think that God is in the business of making sure all the “facts†are correct when his prophets write. The writer of Genesis may truly have believed that the flood had covered the WHOLE world. If we were somehow to discover beyond a doubt that it didn’t actually cover all of it, then we have two choices: 1) Decide the Bible is a hoax and throw it out, or 2) accept the fact that the writer, who had limited knowledge of what worldwide actually would have meant, wrote the story to best of his knowledge. My faith allows me to take the latter approach. Your faith, if based more on the weight of the “scientific†evidence would be obligated to choose the first option. I surely hope we never get incontrovertible proof that the flood was local and could not have been worldwide for the sake of those whose faith is based like yours is.
Again, I ask you, what is the difference between your faith in the Bible and that of the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an? If your faith in the Divine inspiration of the Bible is not at all dependent upon empirical evidence of any kind, upon what do you make your judgment of its superior credibility or relevance?
The fact is that the empirical observations of the author(s) of Genesis are so specific and hard to misinterpret and the internal consistency of the stories are dependent upon these specific empirical observation. For example, how hard would it be to be shown that an “evening and morning” mark off each “day” of creation? Such an empirical observation would be very hard for even a young child to get wrong. The same thing is true with the worldwide Flood. If the Flood was not to be worldwide, why the empirical observation of God telling Noah to build an Ark to save not only humanity, but representatives of all land-dwelling animals? Why didn’t god simply tell Noah to move somewhere else that wouldn’t be affected by the local flood? Why the need to take animals in the Ark if the flood was just some local event?
The stories just don’t hold up very well given such basic and obvious inconsistencies. For most rational candid minds, such inconsistencies, if believed to be obviously false, scientifically, logically lead one to re-consider the “Divine” origin of such fairytale stories.
I suppose if you still want to believe that the Bible is “Inspired” even though the vast majority of it contradicts the conclusions of modern scientists, you’re free to do so. However, don’t expect too many intelligent young minds to follow you or to remain devoted to the SDA Church or even a belief in the Christian message of hope in a bright literal future in Heaven and an eternity with God. How rational is that according to “99.9% of modern scientists”?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
An apology to PUC
@OTNT_Believer:
Must you keep harping on the one statement on Darwin’s finches that few other than yourself and maybe some other creationists disagree with?
I have yet to see you present one phenotypic or genetic difference between any of Darwin’s Finches and other members of the Dome-nest Clade which could not be rapidly realized in a few thousand years. Certainly a 0.3% difference in cytochrome b isn’t a significant problem. I’m not sure what else makes you think that Darwin’s Finches are no uniquely evolved that they could not be explained as originating from Noah’s Ark a few thousand years ago?
As far as your arguments for the date of the first Egyptian dynasty being preceded by over a thousand years of cultural development, it simply doesn’t take very long for groups of humans to develop complex cultures and governments. Also, there are those who argue that the date for the first dynasty is more likely to be less than 4,500 years ago. Either way, the dating of Egyptian dynasties is hardly a very solid basis for challenging the historical SDA position on origins…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
The “striking phenotypic differences, and even unique genetic differences†among different populations of humans and dogs are the results of random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection or (in the case of dogs) artificial selection–not “some span of reproductive isolation.â€
It doesn’t matter how the reproductive isolation is achieved, be it “artificial” or “natural”. The resulting phenotypic differences are much more obvious between certain breeds of dogs or even various human ethnic groups than between certain “cryptic” species.
The reason why cryptic species are given taxonomic status while various breeds of dogs and human ethnic groups are not seems arbitrary to me. There really is no clear dividing line for taxonomic status on the one hand, but not on the other…
Humans don’t depend on the color or texture of eyes, hair and skin to avoid mating with chimps or apes, or even different groups of humans.
Are you kidding me? Humans are indeed biased in the choice of a mate toward those of similar phenotypic appearance. While this is not a universal rule (as is also the case with many kinds of cryptic species who also experience the occasional hybrids), it is certainly a bias.
When a female poodle is in heat, it doesn’t matter what “breed†a male dog belongs to, it is equally stimulated and could care less about the length, color or texture of eyes, hair, ears, snout, legs, tail, etc. The reproductive isolating method between dogs (genus Canis) and foxes (genus Vulpes) is likely based on olfaction rather than external morphology.
Have you considered the efforts of a Great Dane to mate with a chihuahua? Come on now, there are clear examples of not only artificial but natural reproductive isolate between various breeds of dogs and even between various human ethnic groups. Aborigines have arguably experienced some time of natural isolation, as have numerous other ethnic groups of modern and ancient humans. Unique phenotypic and even genotypic features were realized that are arguably more significant than the differences between the songs or nest structure of cryptic species of birds or the other very minor variations between cryptic species of frogs or giraffes, etc…
Again, don’t pretend like this is entirely objective science. It isn’t. There is a a fair amount of subjectivity in play here…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
An apology to PUC
@OTNT_Believer:
And the fact that taxonomists use a b it of subjectivity is a new revelation? Come on Sean, you are nitpicking. Of course there is some subjectivity.
Hey, I’m not the one who came out and said that the differences between Darwin Finches and all other birds were so dramatic and clear cut and objectively understood that they could not be reasonably explained in just a few thousand years… or that the Egyptian dynasties are definitively known to go back over 6,000 years (when they probably go back no more than 4,500 years)…
A “bit” of subjectivity involved here? – no?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Obviously, I’m not talking about women who don’t understand how IUDs and hormonal birth control work. I’m talking about women who do understand. And, according to your cited reference, the majority of women who have such knowledge would not stop using such forms of birth control. Given your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception, such fully-informed women would most certainly be guilty of pre-meditated first-degree murder – before God. Again, morally speaking, it doesn’t matter at all what a human government may or may not say or do. Human governments don’t determine true morality. What really matters is what God thinks. Are such fully-informed women murderers before God? The same as a woman who kills her baby at full term? – just before it would otherwise be born naturally? That’s my question here. I could not make the accusation of murder against a woman using hormonal birth control or IUDs because there really is no unambiguous Scriptural support for your position that full human life begins at the moment of conception – as far as I’m able to tell. That’s the bottom line here.
As far as your argument that the word Gabriel used for John the Baptist before he was born was the same as for a baby that had been born (supporting the equal moral value of the unborn), the Greek that Gabriel used here was: βρέφος. Notice, however, that Gabriel did not use this particular word until John was already six months old (Luke 1:36-41). So, again, as previously discussed with you, I fail to see how Gabriel is defining John as a full human being from the moment of conception here.
After all, an early embryo can split in two, or three or four or five embryos – ending in identical offspring. Yet, although genetically identical, each baby produced in this manner is a unique person. Twins may have identical genetics and indistinguishable bodies, yet they are uniquely different people before God. When did the unique identify of each of these identical twins or triplets, etc., begin? Clearly, not at the moment of conception. You see, the creation of unique genetics isn’t the same thing as the creation of a unique soul or individual person.
You say that I’m unable to provide Scriptural evidence for the dichotomy between the moral value of a person and “its nature”. Well, where is your definitive Scriptural evidence in support for a single cell or small clump of a few cells being fully human? As a relevant aside, where does the Scripture talk about “brain death”? Yet, we do not consider it “murder” or even “manslaughter” to “pull the plug” or harvest the organs of someone who is definitively brain dead – even if the rest of the body is still alive. Why is that do you think? Obviously, because there is no “false dichotomy” here even though Scripture doesn’t specifically address such a situation. The same could very reasonable be true of the human embryo as well. There simply is no definitive Scripture otherwise as far as I can tell.
As far as the LXX, Masoretic, and DSS all “agreeing”, with you I presume, regarding Exodus 21:22-25, well, I just don’t see it that way – and neither do many others, to include many well known historians and Christian leaders and thinkers. There has been a widespread and nuanced theological debate about the beginning of life in the history of Christianity. The idea that personhood begins at the moment of conception is far from a universally agreed upon matter of historical Christian doctrine. When viewed in the long history of the Christian tradition, it is the minority position. In any case, Exodus 21:22-25 does read differently in the LXX and none of the translations seem to definitively support your position. Ancient Jewish scholars certainly didn’t take your perspective. Since the death of a person would be murder or manslaughter, and carry a different penalty, most rabbinic sources deduce from these verses that a fetus has a different status. The Babylonian Talmud states that: “The embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day.” So, I’m afraid that the “weight of evidence” is not clearly on your side here – at least not as best as I am able to tell. Certainly nothing in the New Testament definitively clears up this question in your favor.
The other names your mention present no more convincing arguments than you present – as far as I can tell. They may be less abrasive in their approach (certainly Nic is a very kind and tenderhearted man), but the basic arguments used are very similar to those forwarded by Andrew – just not convincing to me despite my honest efforts to carefully consider them as best as I am able.
Now, it is interesting to me that you actually argue that my position on abortion, “my own definition”, is clear enough to indict those who have committed late-term abortions of murder. If so, I fail to understand your argument that I’ve said and done “nothing” here to make my position clear to the church. The leadership of the SDA Church is well aware of my position.
Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew’s response (Link):
____________
Please notice that by Dr. Pitman’s own argument his very own Adventist Church supports the murder of the unborn (see @25:01) yet notice in his response that he completely ignores this. The Adventist Church, to which Pitman belongs, supports the violent torture and murder of boys and girls in utero yet Pitman spends his time criticizing……Prolife Andrew. To use an analogy, if you belonged to a church that supports rape or slavery why would you then complain about another church member who opposes this? Pitman complains that Andrew is “needlessly abrasive in his tone” but, to further the analogy, at least Andrew doesn’t support rape or slavery! Apparently, an abrasive tone is worth more criticism than supporting or practicing murder. My video is vindicated.
A few additional points:
1.
Pitman does everyone a favor by openly proving the point. He says “Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” RESPONSE: As was explicitly stated in the video @15:29 onwards it was stated “government to make illegal the manufacture sale and use of chemicals that are used to kill or do kill other human beings Dr Pitman however completely ignores this.” And how does Pitman respond? By doing exactly that, ignoring this fact. Andrew’s opinion is irrelevant to the premise of the argument which Pitman ignores: The government can protect the right to life. It can charge people with crimes for destroying an innocent life. The degree of the crime and one’s culpability is determined by the government, not by Andrew. Pitman, again, just ignores the argument. (See also the video @56:29 onwards).
2.
In his response under the video Pitman says “It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face.” This is another falsehood because Pitman is confusing (1) birth control pills that prevent implantation with (2) injecting poison into supermarket foods. The big difference between the two is knowledge. In the former most women have no idea how contraceptives work. The vast majority of women who take contraceptives do so ignorant of how they work while, in Pitman’s example, injecting poison relies upon knowledge. Most women do not know how contraceptives work and if they did know it would change their behavior. For example, in 2010 a journal for obstetrics and gynecology reported that 45% of the women said that they would not consider using a birth control method that had post-fertilization effects, and 48% of women said that if they found out they were using a method that had post-fertilization effects, they would stop using that method. Lopez-del Burgo C, Lopez-de Fez CM, Osorio A, Guzmán JL, de Irala J. Spanish women’s attitudes towards post-fertilization effects of birth control methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Jul;151(1):56-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.03.012. Epub 2010 Apr 13. PMID: 20392555. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20392555/
3.
Pitman says “despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails.” RESPONSE: This is both false and absurd as Gabriel is describing a physical situation wherein the nature of the unborn is defined with the exact same Greek words for born sons. Pitman assumes a false dichotomy between “moral value” of the unborn and its nature but he is unable to provide any scriptural evidence for such a dichotomy.
4.
Pitman says “Taken together, all of the translations of this passage [Exodus 21:22-23] leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.” This is false because as was explicitly stated in the video, the Masoretic, LXX, and DSS all agree. The weight of the evidence is against Pitman here. And as was noted above, Pitman is here assuming a dichotomy for which he has no evidence. Furthermore, as was noted explicitly in the video @49:13, Pitman is committing a category error by comparing unintentional vs. intentional. Despite this being addressed explicitly Pitman ignores this as well. (This is the same Pitman @54:16 who criticizes others for rejecting the weight of evidence).
5.
Arguably, one of the biggest falsehoods is when Pitman complains that Prolife Andrew is “often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful.” This is false because Prolife Andrew’s videos began in 2017. There have been many prolife voices within Adventism especially since the late 1980s and early 1990s. Pitman complains about Andrew’s tone but doesn’t make such accusations against those who for decades preceded Andrew because he can’t. Nic Samojluk, Doug Yowell, Teresa Beem, Dr. Martin Weber, George Gainer, George Lawson, Dr. Richard Fredericks, etc. were all well known and continue to be outspoken about the Adventist Church’s support for murder. As was mentioned in the video @34:50 Pitman also ignores the arguments of Drs. Robert George and Christopher Tollefson who are some of the most highly respected, articulate voices concerning the ethics of (embryonic) abortion. For these people Pitman can’t make accusations of “abrasive tone” so he simply continues his trend of just ignoring them. This tactic was explicitly noted @58:56 and Pitman just again vindicates the accuracy of the video.
Pitman belongs to a church that has, by his own definition, officially and publicly supported the violent murder of helpless, little children for over fifty years.
Updating the SDA Position on Abortion
Andrew Michell (AKA: ProLife Andrew) has put out a lengthy video in response to my article on abortion.
His YouTube Channel can be found here: Link
And his Facebook page here: Link
And his page on X here: Link
While I commend Andrew’s passion to protect the lives of the unborn, I find his argument that full human life begins at the moment of conception unconvicting – at least inconclusive. I mean, if the full moral value of human life truly begins at the moment of conception, as Andrew, the Catholic Church, and many Protestants believe, then all women who use various forms of birth control that block embryologic development (after fertilization) are forms of premeditated murder (to include IUDs and various birth control medications).
- Progestin-only pills (mini-pill): These pills thicken cervical mucus, making it harder for sperm to reach the egg, and thin the lining of the uterus, making it less hospitable for implantation.
- Combined oral contraceptives (the pill), patch, vaginal ring, and injections: These methods prevent ovulation, meaning no egg is released for fertilization, and also thicken cervical mucus and thin the uterine lining.
- Contraceptive implant (Nexplanon): This small rod inserted under the skin releases progestin, reducing pregnancy by reducing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and thinning the uterine lining reducing implantation.
- Hormonal IUD: These IUDs release progestin, which changes the cervix and uterus to prevent sperm from reaching an egg and also makes it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant.
- Copper IUD: This IUD uses copper to prevent pregnancy by creating an environment that is unfavorable for sperm and fertilization, and also disrupts the lining of the uterus, making implantation less likely.
- Emergency contraception: Some emergency contraceptive pills, like Plan B, can prevent implantation if taken soon after unprotected sex.
So, are women who use such birth control methods truly guilty of murder? – as Andrew’s position would indicate?
While it is true that the genetics of a person are set at conception, what about the moral worth of a person? You see, science cannot address this question. So, where can one turn to find out the answer? Well, as Christians, the Bible should be our first and primary source to search for answers to moral questions. And, I applaud Andrew for trying to do this. In support of the concept that full human life begins at the moment of conception Andrew cites various Biblical passages. Here are examples of Bible passages that Andrew finds most convincing in this regard:
-
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” – Psalms 51:5
“Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.” – Luke 1:36-37
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” – Psalms 139:13
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” – Jeremiah 1:5
For Andrew, these and other similar passages are conclusive evidence of the full value of humanity starting at the moment of conception. However, many honest Christians just don’t see it this way. Andrew cannot understand how anyone could honestly disagree with him after hearing out his arguments, but I for one am honestly not convinced. And, it’s not because I don’t want to know the truth as God wishes me to know it. It’s because I don’t see anywhere in these passages that Andrew cites where God makes the idea clear that the full value of humanity begins at the moment of conception.
Add to this the passage in Exodus 21:22-25 (discussed in some detail in my article above) that seems to support the conclusion that there is a spectrum as to the moral value of human life during embryological/fetal development. Certainly the writers of the LXX (3rd to 1st century B.C.) supported this conclusion hundred years before the Masoretic Text was written (7th to 10th centuries A.D.). And, while it is true that the Samaritan Pentateuch overlapped the production of the LXX, it is not true that the language of the Samaritan Pentateuch, regarding this passage in Exodus, is definitively unambiguous – certainly not unambiguous enough to discount the LXX translation of this passage. Taken together, all of the translations of this passage leave the question as to the moral value of the human embryo as not clearly answered or defined.
But what about the passages that Andrew cites? Don’t these passages clearly demonstrate God’s Design of the embryo from the very moment of conception? And, if so, is anyone at liberty to destroy or even hinder what God is forming? Well, look at the passage from Jeremiah 1:5 where God explains that he knew of the future existence of Jeremiah before he was even conceived. This passage simply speaks to the foreknowledge of God rather than to the moral value of a human embryo or a single fertilized cell. It really doesn’t answer the question as to if a deliberate ending of an an early pregnancy, such as after a few days of fertilization, is truly considered “murder” in the site of God. Also, despite Andrew’s adamant assertion that the Angel Gabriel defined John the Baptist as being of full moral value from the moment of conception, Gabriel never actually said that. Gabriel was simply noting that the Word of God, the foreknowledge of God, never fails. But what about David claiming that he was “sinful from the moment of conception”? Well, it’s hard for me to definitively argue that this is clearly more than poetic license. After all, Jesus Himself noted that unless a person consciously knows the truth, and deliberately choses to do otherwise, there is no sin (John 9:41; John 15:22; James 4:17). How then can a single cell, or a small cluster of cells that is unable to think or act, be guilty of sin? – beyond the fact that we are conceived and born in a state of moral separation from God? Again, I fail to see such arguments as conclusive support for Andrew’s position that women who use the various forms of birth control described above are guilty of murder. Not even the founders of the SDA Church said anything about full humanity being instantly realized at the moment of conception. Yes, they were opposed to abortion (Link). However, modern birth control methods had yet to be invented. Would they really be opposed to such birth control methods? We cannot know, for sure, but I doubt it. Certainly there is no clear or definitive guidance regarding this particular question from the Bible, the Spirit of Prophecy, or the Founders of the SDA Church.
And, that’s my main concern here. At what point would I be willing to accuse a woman of being a murderer? – worthy of arrest and execution for deliberately taking the life of another human being? I just do not see the clear Biblical support, or support from any other inspired authority, for making such a charge when it comes to a single cell or a tiny ball-shaped cluster of cells. Sure, once the body of the baby is formed, and certainly once the brain of the baby is functional, things become much more clear in my own mind regarding the moral value of the baby as a full human being with all of the moral God-given rights thereof. It’s just that I honestly see no solid basis for accusing a woman of murder for blocking or terminating a pregnancy very early on following conception when the pregnancy consists only of a single cell or a small cluster of cells.
What is also most interesting is that, in his review of my article, Andrew gets a bit upset with me saying that I’m the one using “inflammatory language” such as “first-degree cold-blooded murder”. Surprisingly, Andrew would evidently be fine with a “lesser charge” such as “involuntary manslaughter” (57:00) for women who use birth control that prevents embryonic implantation or who otherwise deliberately abort their babies. I’m actually really surprised by this particular argument since, if one truly views a full human life as beginning at the moment of conception, how can one argue that the deliberate termination of such a life is anything other than a deliberate pre-meditated murder? I mean, it’s almost as if Andrew doesn’t really believe what he’s saying regarding the full value of human life beginning at conception. He does discuss birth control pills or IUDs (starting around the 17-minute mark) that block the implantation of the embryo, thus aborting it, but claims that the mother’s lack of knowledge as to exactly when this happens means that she isn’t really guilty of premeditated murder. Really? It’s like arguing that deliberately putting lethal poison into apples or candy or medication at the supermarket isn’t really premeditated murder because the one doing this doesn’t know exactly when someone will actually die. That argument is clearly false on its face. And, contrary to Andrew’s claims, this has nothing at all to do with the government proving or doing anything. It has nothing to do with human governments at all. It has to do with the morality of a woman deliberately doing something that she knows will likely end pregnancy shortly after conception. If this act really is the taking of full human life, it is premeditated murder before God. There’s just no other term to use if full human life really does begin at the moment of conception.
Another relevant issue involves the use of IUDs and birth control pills to regulate hormonal issues that many women suffer. Andrew suggests that condom use would overcome such issues. However, even if condoms are always and correctly used with every act of intercourse, they have around a 3% failure rate (Link, Link) with some studies showing a failure rate of condoms of up to 16% per year (Link). In other words, even if a condom is being used by the husband every single time he has sex with his wife, at best there is still around a 3% chance of impregnating his wife within a given year. If she is also on hormonal birth control, that means that there is a ~3% chance of killing a real human being if full human life truly begins at conception. How is this a viable solution given the reality of Andrew’s position? Basically, what married couples would be left with is the Catholic concept of not having vaginal sex unless they are actually trying to get pregnant. Just because not every such effort would be successful, as Andrew points out in his video, is completely irrelevant to the required motive that would be necessary before couples could engage in sex without guilt – without the possibility of committing murder. In other worlds, no sexually active woman could ever take advantage of the benefits of hormonal birth control without the guilt of murder on her conscience – even if her husband always uses a condom (which is also less fun by the way).
Andrew also claims that I have done “nothing” to combat abortion, not even late-term abortion (i.e., an induced ending of pregnancy after the 20th week) – despite the fact that I’ve written this particular article calling late term abortion murder in no uncertain terms – and having directly prevented such an abortion when it was in my power to do so as a medical officer in the US Army (something that not even Andrew has been able to do). In fact, several church leaders have contacted me due to their favorable impression of my article on abortion, including religious liberty lawyers. Portions have even been included in religious liberty literature regarding this topic. The religious liberty lawyer for northern and central California conferences, Stephen Allred, included much of my article in the appendix of his book, “Do Justice: The Case for Biblical Social Justice” (Link). And no, he is no relation to the notorious abortion doctor Edward C. Allred, who outright murdered a great many late-term babies.
I guess Andrew feels that this doesn’t go nearly far enough. It’s just that I honestly don’t see his position as entirely accurate or conclusive or his approach to this topic as being more positive than negative. For me, Andrew’s position is without clear Biblical support regarding the claim that full humanity begins at conception and is inconsistent, as noted above, in that he argues for a lesser charge than “murder” for women who deliberately abort very early in pregnancy. He is often sarcastic and needlessly abrasive in his tone and has a habit of misrepresenting or distorting the positions of those he attacks in his YouTube videos. He’s just not even handed in how he presents and deals with the those who hold differing views. I just don’t see this as being at all Christlike or remotely helpful – at least not for me personally. It ends up harming the positive impact that one could have on an important topic, which is probably the reason that Andrew is largely ignored by the leadership of the SDA Church. Now, I understand that he believes that this issue is clearly black and white, to the point that no one his his/her right mind could honestly question his position. Perhaps, however, there are a few, like me, who just don’t have the same mental capacity to grasp what Andrew sees so clearly?
Now, I do appreciate the seriousness and righteousness of Andrew’s effort to save lives. While I may disagree with or fail to understand his arguments or his methods/approach, I do see his motives as being very good indeed! I have no problem with his sincerity or his passion to save lives. The attempt to save lives is a noble effort. However, the process, the method used, is also important. I mean, consider that Jesus, who was trying to save souls as well as lives, was much more patient and tactful in his approach – a pattern that would serve us all well to emulate as we deal with others who don’t see things in quite the same way. Yes, I know that Jesus did rarely call out exceptional cases with very harsh language. However, generally speaking, such methods should be avoided if at all possible – especially when dealing with fellow Christians who are sincere and who are actually trying to learn and to do what it right.
Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
God gave rational empirical “scientific” evidence to believe Noah’s message.
Many of the amazing discoveries of medical science in our day, to include the gift of vaccines and an understanding as to how the human immune system actually works, are not opposed to the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy (Ellen White did not opposed the use of vaccines). They are amazing gifts from God that should not be ignored or disregarded.
In this same line, Barbara O’Neill has made numerous false and misleading claims regarding various medical therapies – particularly regarding the treatment of serious conditions like cancer. She does get some things right, but the things she gets wrong significantly overshadow the things she gets right and have significant hurt people. For example, she wraps people who have cancer (which she falsely claims is caused by fungal infections, promoted by antiobiotics and other pharmaceuticals – Link) in towels soaked in baking soda as a means to treat their cancers when such treatments do not help cancer patients in the least. (Link). Yet, she she makes a lot of money peddling these and other such worthless “therapies” to the gullible. She speaks with great confidence and assurance about things that she doesn’t remotely understand since she has no medical training. It’s not the GC or Church leadership or physicians like me making money off of “Big Pharma”. Rather, it’s the snake-oil salesmen like Peter McCullough and Barbara O’Neill, and others like them, who are making quite a lot of money selling their worthless natural remedies and conspiracy theories to their worldwide audiences. Consider that her Misty Mountain Health Retreat near Kempsey charged clients as much as $2,450 per person for a one-week stay and $8,800 for two people for two weeks. She also sells numerous books and travels around giving paid conferences and seminars. Let’s just say that she makes a very good living doing what she does (Link).
It’s not like I’m opposed to natural remedies that actually work, of course. I’m just opposed to those who promote “natural remedies” just because they’re supposedly “natural” when they don’t actually do what they’re claimed to do by those who have no understanding of medical science who make money selling their “remedies” to the gullible and the desperate. If you want to see some natural remedies promoted by someone who actually does known what he’s talking about, look up the YouTube videos put out by the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult.
Liberty & Health Alliance – An Appeal for Action
While recommending the vaccines, the vaccine statements clearly left the decision to vaccinate, or not, to the individual. They had nothing to do with government funding (yet another conspiracy theory). These statements were issued in an honest effort to save lives, not to make money. The “medical minds” at the BoT Symposium generally support anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists like Peter McCullough who are known for promoting misleading or downright false claims regarding the pandemic and the mRNA vaccines.
