Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.
@Ron:
What I am saying, is that the pattern that
Darwin described, increasing variability, being constrained by natural selection, is a process that happens in more parts of the universe than just biology. He described it first in biology, but it isn’t limited to biology.
The disagreement here isn’t over increasing variability without any additional qualification. Things that are getting old and decaying over time also show increased variability. The argument with Neo-Darwinists is over the notion that the quality of functional/meaningful information within a gene pool can improve over time without the involvement of deliberate intelligent manipulation.
This is in fact what Darwin suggested. His theory wasn’t simply about any old form of variation over time. His theory was about stepwise genetic improvements or enhancements at higher and higher levels of functional complexity over time.
This is where Dr. Sanford and the rest of us disagree with Darwin. Darwin thought that gene pools could be able to consistently and gradually improve over time. The problem is that the changes and variability generated by random mutations and natural selection alone (without the involvement of intelligent manipulation) produce downhill variability over time. They cause the gene pool to become less and less viable until it eventually melts down completely and dies. That’s the problem here.
For example, we see the principle at work in the evolution of things that are clearly intelligently designed. Hence my assertion that evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.
Indeed. Any time intelligence is involved, a series of stepwise improvements over time is possible. However, when intelligence is not directly involved, random mutations and natural selection will result in the steady decay of meaningful/functional information systems… which is what is currently happening to your own DNA and to the DNA in the human gene pool as a whole.
But to deny the existence of a principle that is so pervasive, throughout everything, just isn’t rational. Somewhere, somehow, we are going to have to develop a theology that addresses the issue somehow other than simple denial.
Again, no one is denying the fact of change over time – even via purely mindless mechanisms. The only thing in question here is which way the change is going when only mindless mechanisms are in play? – Up or Down the ladder of functional complexity?
I am afraid that if we continue simply denying the existence of evolution, and asserting that evolution and the belief in God are incompatible, then we will eventually force people to reject God, because evolution is completely pervasive in our lives.
Yet again, no one is denying evolution here as basic “change over time”. Some form of change over time is always happening. The problem, of course, is with the Darwinian concept that natural mechanisms can produced improved changes over time without the detectable aid of any form of intelligence.
There is also the observation that slowly reproducing biosystems (like all types of mammals) are in fact degenerating before our very eyes.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Ken:
Aside from the fact that science cannot definitively prove any theory, yes, a form of historical science can be used to test and evaluate Biblical prophecies. You have to know a lot about history though. You can’t simply read Daniel and Revelation and hope to understand what you’re reading unless you have detailed knowledge of the historical events being discussed.
I recommend you start with the “70 weeks” prophecy starting with Daniel 9:24. This prophecy precisely predicts the First Coming of Jesus as well as his death to the day.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:
I’ve been doing this a long time (almost 20 years now) and I can tell you that, as far as I know, no one has misunderstood my position as a young life creationist who also recognizes limited forms of Darwinian evolution…
This isn’t like accepting a little bit of Nazism. The Darwinian mechanism is given its name because Darwin really was the first to popularize it in published literature. Therefore, he deserves to have his name attached to the mechanism of RM/NS.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:
I’ve only been expaining why I say things the way I say them. I believe it is best to at least try to start off a discussion on as much common ground as is possible with those on the opposing side in a discussion… to openly admit those points, from the opposing side, that are actually valid.
As I see it, there is simply no advantage in arguing that Darwinian evolution is completely wrong – that I believe in no form of Darwinism. It’s just not true for one thing and admitting those things that the Darwinian mechanism can produce only adds to the credibility of the creationist position – in my opinion.
Sean Pitman
www.DeteectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
