Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.

Ron,

You wrote (Link):

I notice that Mendelson’s work was not published until 1866, and was pretty much ignored until it was rediscovered in 1900. Whereas Darwin’s book was published in 1859. I agree that the finches beaks, if not strictly Mendelian, then at least they are the result of multigenetic variations which does not add anything new to the genetic library.

Well, at least we are on common ground so far regarding Mendel’s work and its unique difference from the Darwinian view of change over time… i.e., Mendelian variation is not based on any change to the underlying gene pool of options. In other words, the underlying gene pool remains static during Mendelian variation.

Darwin however, did not have access to Mendelson’s work when he wrote, and Darwin obviously considered the finches beaks to be an example of evolution, so why do you exclude Mendelian genetics from Darwinian evolution?

Because, Mendel was right and Darwin was wrong when it came to understanding what was responsible for the changes in phenotypic appearance of certain biological features over time. Mendel knew that these changes were the result of pre-programmed codes for variability that were predictable and limited. Darwin did not understand this at all. He thought that all changes over time were the result of random “insensible gradations” that could add up to produce more and more changes without end. He was mistaken.

I would think that you would have to include Mendelian variations as one of many mechanisms that accounts for Darwinian evolution.

Nope. Mendelian variation is uniquely different from Darwinian evolution since the underlying mechanism is completely different. Mendelian variation is based on a static underlying gene pool that does not change over time. Darwinian evolution is based on a changing underlying gene pool that is uniquely different compared to the parental gene pool.

I know, it doesn’t add any new genetic ability, and it doesn’t account for “amoeba to horse evolution”, but it at least accounts for the finches beaks.

That’s right. A form of Mendelian-style variation accounts for finch beaks just fine without any need for novel genetic mutations or functionality entering or leaving the gene pool. This is what makes the Darwinian mechanism of unique random mutations to the underlying gene pool unnecessary in the presence of pre-programmed variables.

Another term for this concept is “front-loaded” information. The potential for Mendelian-style variation is based on preformed or front-loaded information that was always present in the gene pool from the very beginning.

This is not the case for modern neo-Darwinian ideas about evolution where the original gene pool was much much smaller and simpler and then grew in diversity and complexity over time…

These ideas are based on very very different mechanisms and should not be clumped together as the same thing. They aren’t the same thing at all. In fact, if Mendel’s correct view of genetics had become more well known before Darwin came along, Darwin’s ideas would probably not have become popular like they did.

It just seems more logical than to deny evolution altogether as Bob and Bill do, it would be better, to say, yes of course there is evolution. It just can’t replace God. (I think you actually do say that. I think it is Bob, Faith, and Hope and Bill who are still giving mixed messages about whether evolution has a place.)

You shouldn’t clump all creationists together either. The science behind creationism and intelligent design is far more sophisticated than what you might hear from those who have had little education or background in the field of genetics or biology in general.

I am not sure exactly when 2SM was written, but probably before 1900. So presumably when Mrs. White said that “theistic evolution” was the worst infidelity, she had in mind all forms of evolution which would have included any form of evolution attributed to Mendelian genetics as well, since she was referencing Darwin’s theory, and Darwin’s theory was based primarily on Mendelian variation. Why is it that people who otherwise are quite literal in their interpretations, suddenly exclude Mendelian inheritance from Mrs. White’s statement?

Mrs. White was very specific in the type of evolution she excluded. She specifically talked about the error of the concept of living things evolving from simpler organisms or life existing on this planet for millions of years. She wrote about things devolving, getting worse over time since the Fall and especially since the Flood. Here is what she wrote:

It is true that remains found in the earth testify to the existence of men, animals, and plants much larger than any now known. These are regarded as proving the existence of vegetable and animal life prior to the time of the Mosaic record. But concerning these things Bible history furnishes ample explanation. Before the Flood the development of vegetable and animal life was immeasurably superior to that which has since been known. At the Flood the surface of the earth was broken up, marked changes took place, and in the re-formation of the earth’s crust were preserved many evidences of the life previously existing. The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today. These things, as they are brought to light, are so many witnesses mutely testifying to the truth of the word of God.

Akin to the theory concerning the evolution of the earth is that which attributes to an ascending line of germs, mollusks, and quadrupeds the evolution of man, the crowning glory of the creation.

When consideration is given to man’s opportunities for research; how brief his life; how limited his sphere of action; how restricted his vision; how frequent and how great the errors in his conclusions, especially as concerns the events thought to antedate Bible history; how often the supposed deductions of science are revised or cast aside; with what readiness the assumed period of the earth’s development is from time to time increased or diminished by millions of years; and how the theories advanced by different scientists conflict with one another, — considering all this, shall we, for the privilege of tracing our descent from germs and mollusks and apes, consent to cast away that statement of Holy Writ, so grand in its simplicity, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him”? Genesis 1:27. Shall we reject that genealogical record, — prouder than any treasured in the courts of kings, — “which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God”? Luke 3:38.

Rightly understood, both the revelations of science and the experiences of life are in harmony with the testimony of Scripture to the constant working of God in nature.

Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1952), pp. 128-134.

Especially consider the passage where she says, “considering all this, shall we, for the privilege of tracing our descent from germs and mollusks and apes, consent to cast away that statement of Holy Writ, so grand in its simplicity, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him? – Genesis 1:27.”

Mrs. White is not talking about Mendelian variation here. After all, Mendelian variation is what was responsible for the significant phenotypic differences in her own children… and in the differences of all the dog breeds and breeds of cattle (etc) that existed in her own day. She wasn’t speaking about this type of variability at all…

One of the main arguments between creationists and evolutionists is over the fixedness of species. At least in the mid 1800′s creationists and evolutionists both thought that if the fixedness of species were abandoned or proved false, that it would falsify Genesis and prove God was excluded from the process. I think that is and was a false dichotomy. I think that Mrs. White’s statements about amalgamation, (yes, it referred to interbreeding of son’s of Seth with the daughters of Cain, but it also references animals) proves that Mrs. White did not believe in the fixedness of species, thereby validating the idea that fixedness of species is not determinative as to whether or not God was the creator.

Mrs. White believed in the fixity of “kinds” of animals – not well defined by the modern concept of “species” since species are not defined by qualitatively unique gene pools.

Gene pools that are qualitatively unique, beyond low levels of functional complexity, cannot naturally mix or hybridize (outside of deliberate genetic engineering by high level intelligent design and technology that is).

As you noted in your article about the donkeys and horses it is very difficult to define a distinct boundary. So why try? I don’t think it really makes any difference to the question of creation. Obviously God could have created all the species capable of interbreeding as well as he could have created all species incapable of any interbreeding at all, or any combination he wants.

The boundaries of hybridization are the same boundaries of Darwinian evolution. Determining these boundaries highlights the point where intelligent design is obviously required to explain the functional differences between qualitatively unique gene pools and even genetic elements within a gene pool.

Without this evidence you can say that you believe in the existence a God and that your God was responsible for the creation of life on this planet. However, without some empirical evidence in support, this statement of faith would have no more rational convincing power behind it than the claim of someone to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus or garden fairies did it all…

Is it really so vile to accept that Darwin saw what he saw and agreeing with the fact of evolution without buying into the argument that the existence of evolution somehow disproves creation?

Again, it is the existence of any mindless mechanism that could produce all the features of living things that would remove the necessity of any kind of intelligence to explain their origin.

That’s the problem. It is for this reason, also, that Darwin became an atheist. It is also for this reason that many modern neo-Darwinists are also atheists or agnostics.

The philosophical implications of neo-Darwinism basically means that whatever God you might believe in does not act in a detectable manner on this Earth or in this universe. According to William Provine, such a God simply isn’t worth having.

William Provine, late professor of biological sciences at Cornell University, gave a very interesting speech for a 1998 Darwin Day keynote address. As part of this speech he explained:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.

• No gods worth having exist;
• No life after death exists;
• No ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
• No ultimate meaning in life exists; and
• Human free will is nonexistent.

Provine also wrote, “In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.”

Academe January 1987, pp.51-52

So, you now understand why Darwin left the idea of God behind. It only makes rational sense once you accept the neo-Darwinian idea that an apparently mindless mechanism can explain all that you see. That the hand of a God is not rationally or empirically detectable in any aspect of nature… not even living things.

Just for the sake of argument, if it could somehow in the future be proved that there are biological systems not yet discovered that would allow organisms to reach your somewhat arbitrary 1000aa level of specificity, would that prove that God didn’t create the whole kit and caboodle 6000 years ago? I don’t think so. Would you really give up belief in God if that threshold were somehow reached?

Yes. If it could be shown how any mindless naturalistic mechanism could explain the existence of higher levels of functional complexity of evolving life forms over hundreds of millions of years, I would certainly no longer accept the Christian view of God as remotely valid or empirically rational. I would leave the SDA Church as well as Christianity behind.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman