Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
Dinosaur fossils are real, no trick, but there is good evidence that they aren’t millions of years old. Extremely well preserved elastic soft tissues with largely intact sequencable immunogenic proteins strongly argue that these bones are of recent origin. Kinetic chemistry theories of protein degeneration have long argued that it would be effectively impossible for such proteins to remain intact longer than 100,000 years or so – certainly not tens of millions of years.

As far as the Big Bang theory, why would SDAs have a problem with that? The argument that the universe has a beginning actually favors the concept that the universe was designed – according to many well-known physicists. You see, the argument isn’t that the entire universe is young, but that life on this planet is young.

And, talk about turning your brain off when you try to imagine a random explosion producing our finely tuned universe or any mindless mechanism producing the most simple living thing – or even one of the biomachines within the most simple living thing that requires more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid building blocks. Such just-so story telling for how the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection produced such complex biomachines simply isn’t rationally tenable nor is it scientific – not even given trillions of years of time…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
Configuration or conformation entropy of macroscopic systems is based on a similar concept to thermodynamic entropy, to be sure – i.e., where entropy is defined as the amount of additional information needed to specify the exact physical state of a system among all possible states the system could take.

In other words, there is a very large but finite number of different possible arrangements that a protein molecule (different possible “rotametric states”) or pool balls on a pool table, for example, could take. The amount of “additional information” it takes to specify the exact physical state of such a molecule or pool balls on a table would be equivalent to its “conformation entropy” – the same as if we were dealing with a collection of gas molecules in a box – which also have conformational entropy.

However, there is a distinct difference here. The conformation entropy of macroscopic systems within a thermodynamic system need not be related to the heat distribution or thermodynamics of a system. Add heat to a pool table and what do you get? A bunch of hot pool balls. That’s it. Also, does a difference in arrangement of non-moving pool balls make one more or less able to obtain “useful work” from them? The same would be true for a fan in a system – a hot fan vs. a cold fan, it still works the same in a thermodynamic system. Also, the arrangement of a protein molecule or pool balls on a table isn’t related to if the thermodynamic system within which it exists is open or closed or in a state of maximum entropy or not. The same could be said for the “conformation entropy” of a room crowded with a bunch of people. The people in the room are not governed by the 2LoT with regard to how they decide to arrange themselves. Yet, their collective arrangement does have “conformation entropy” that can be increased or decreased at will without violating the 2LoT. In this respect, conformation entropy is equivalent to Shannon entropy or Kolmogorov/Chaitin complexity.

You see, the 2LoT only deals with the thermodynamic aspects of a system, not with the conformational entropy of the system outside of the thermodynamic properties of the system. That is why the 2LoT does not govern the other various kinds of entropy that may exist within a thermodynamic system. This is why humans can create various forms of “order” from “disorder” within our thermodynamic system. We can create cars and airplanes and computers, etc. Theoretically, we could even repair our own DNA and cure all genetic diseases and genetic deterioration. Yet, we would not violate the 2LoT by doing so because the 2LoT is distinctly about the thermodynamic potential of a system – not about what conformational order or disorder is produced via this thermodynamic potential.

Again, these various entropy concepts are certainly related, but they are not the same. The 2LoT only deals with a very limited type of entropy – with a particular type of conformational entropy that is based on heat distribution within a system and the ability or potential of this heat distribution to give rise to “useful work”.

So, please, do try to keep these concepts separate and do not continue to argue that evolution violates the 2LoT – a law which does not deal with the structural or functional order or disorder or conformational entropy of macrosystems.

Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
Not all types of “entropy” are about the 2LoT. The 2LoT only deals with thermodynamic entropy.

The paper you reference is about “conformational entropy”, not thermodynamic entropy. These are different types of entropy. Conformational entropy is associated with the physical arrangement of a polymer chain that assumes a compact or globular state in solution. This concept is most commonly applied to biological macromolecules such as proteins and RNA, but can also be used for polysaccharides and other polymeric organic compounds.

In short, conformational entropy isn’t about the thermodynamic potential of a system. Therefore, conformational entropy isn’t about the 2LoT just like the functional or non-functional states of machines within a thermodynamic system have nothing to do with the 2LoT either.

Again, thermodynamics is an entirely separate topic. Don’t confuse things that are not related to the thermodynamic potential of a system with the 2LoT.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
If the human immune system were the “perfect mechanism” that God originally designed it to be, you’d be right. However, after ~6000 years of sin and decay, the human immune system is no longer what God originally designed it to be – as evidenced by the great many, even among healthy vegan SDAs, who died during the pandemic. Water and light therapies are great and are helpful as layers of protection, but for many, especially those over the age of 65, whey were not enough. The mRNA vaccines were very effective in providing an additional much needed layer of protection during the pandemic. Now, I’ve very glad that you did not get sick enough to require hospitalization and that you avoided long-term injuries and death during the pandemic, but many many others were not so fortunate.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Yeah, I think you’re right…

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership

Hi Sean,

Hope all is well.

I see you wrote a recent article defending the covid vaccine. You seem to be the main protagonist in the church championing the cause of the covid vaccines.

I am on the opposite spectrum

I personally did not touch any of those vaccines, and won’t ever either. I just see to many red flags and it’s alarming to me. Could you possibly explain to me what Revelation 18:23 speaks about please? I would love to hear your take on that verse.

Justin S

Hi Justin,

Thank you for your note. I do appreciate your concerns and your convictions. It can be very confusing to sort out so many different voices saying so many different things regarding what to think and what do to keep oneself as healthy as possible.

Regarding Revelation 18:23, in particular, the term “pharmakeia” is best translated as “sorcery” here. There is no intended advice at all against modern medicine in this passage. After all, would it be wise to suggest that medications like antibiotics to treat bacterial infections or insulin to treat diabetes are evil “sorceries”? Again, such arguments only make the Christians who say such things look sensational and irrational – which puts the Gospel Message itself into a bad light for those who are considering following Christ.

COVID-19 and Vaccines – Update

Consider also that Ellen White herself promoted various medications and medical therapies of her day that she considered to be helpful in various situations? – to include the use of what was generally regarded as a “poison”, quinine, to prevent malarial infections for missionaries who worked in malaria-infested regions of the world? She wrote, “If quinine will save a life, use quinine.” (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine) She also supported the vaccination of her son William, both as a child and as an adult (despite William having had an adverse reaction to vaccination as a child) (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine). She supported blood transfusion when necessary, despite their risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=303). And, she even supported using radiation therapy when appropriate, despite its risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=303). Beyond this, she recognized the advantages of anesthesia during surgery and the use of medicines to relieve the intense pain and suffering of the injured or sick (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=286&QUERY=before+major+surgery&resultId=1&isLastResult=1).

I hope this helps you at least understand why I take the position that I take. I mean, I’m a pathologist with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology and have studied COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines in great detail. Beyond this, I’ve seen the results myself, with my own eyes – and so has my brother-in-law, pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult who runs a large ICU in S. Cal. We’ve seen ICUs overflowing, beyond max capacity, with the very sick and the dying during the height of the pandemic – the vast majority of whom were unvaccinated. Roger’s face and hands are the last things that many saw and felt on this Earth. It was very personal for us. We were actually direct eyewitnesses. And, we’re not alone. This very same situation was happening all around the world during the pandemic. Truly, the mRNA vaccines saved millions of lives and prevented many many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Regarding Mandates:

“While the available data in 2021 and early 2022 suggested that being vaccinated conferred tremendous personal benefit to the recipient, such that it was unclear if there could be added gain for demanding others be vaccinated too for added protection. By mid-2022, vaccines did offer modest reduction in transmission, but personal health benefits against severe disease were largely retained. Yet, by the fall of 2022, with the emergence of the Omicron variant, a new verdict had emerged. Vaccines were unable to halt transmission in the presence of escape variants; thus, here too, mandates failed to meet the ethical pre-requisite of benefit to others, as a vaccinated person could still spread the virus. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed comparable rates of viral shedding comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people with COVID-19 (Boucau et al. 2022).” (Vinay Prasad, 2024) 

I was never personally a fan of the vaccine mandates put out by the US government (or other governments around the world) since they seemed to me to be largely counterproductive and provide little benefit regarding limiting the spread of the virus after the Omicron variant came out. As Dr. Prasad points out here (Link), the mRNA vaccines were so good as far as personal protection was concerned, that limiting the spread of COVID-19, once the vaccines became available, was kind of a moot point.

That being said, once the government mandates were in place, I also didn’t see it as appropriate to claim religious liberty as a reason for refusing to get vaccinated – since there is nothing in the Bible that would prevent one from obeying a government mandate along these lines (Link). People often cite the case of Daniel and his three friends refusing the king’s meat as a Biblical basis for refusing to comply with vaccine mandates. The problem here is that the vaccines themselves were not unhealthy or unreasonable during a pandemic and their use was not recognized as a form of idol worship. Also, Daniel’s proposed 10-day test would not have had the same results with respect to the mRNA vaccines, but would have shown benefits for the significant majority of people.

As Ellen White put it:

“In cases where we are brought before the courts, we are to give up our rights, unless it brings us in collision with God. It is not our rights we are pleading for, but God’s right to our service.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases 5:69 – 1895)

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Wow! I had no idea.

However, this does seem to be inconsistent with the following on Canadian Law regarding Religious Liberty (from the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms):

Sincerity of belief is a question of fact. To establish sincerity, an individual must show that they sincerely believe that a certain belief or practice is required by their religion. The religious belief must be asserted in good faith and must not be fictitious, capricious or an artifice. In assessing the sincerity of the belief, a court will take into account, inter alia, the credibility of the testimony of the person asserting the particular belief and the consistency of the belief with that person’s other current religious practices (Multani, supra at paragraph 35; Amselem, supra at paragraphs 52-53). It is the sincerity of the belief at the time of the interference, not its strength or absolute consistency over time, that is relevant at this stage of the analysis (R. v. N.S., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726 at paragraph 13).

The Court does not want to engage in theological debates when examining the practice or belief in question. The practice or belief in question need not be required by official religious dogma nor need it be in conformity with the position of religious officials. Freedom of religion extends beyond obligatory doctrine to voluntary expressions of faith and is not restricted to major and recognizable religions (Amselem, supra at paragraphs 46-50, 53, and 56). A protected religious practice need not be part of an established belief system or even a belief shared by others. An individual need only demonstrate a sincere belief that the practice is of religious significance to the individual (Little v. R., 2009 NBCA 53, leave to appeal dismissed, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 417 at paragraph 7). It is not appropriate to adduce expert evidence showing sincerity or lack thereof (Amselem, supra at paragraph 54).

https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html

So, given the above, are there any examples were someone actually was able to present so-called “objective” evidence in the form of a “tenet of religious faith”, which actually achieved success? where such an individual would not have been fired? I mean, let’s just say, for argument sake, that the Catholic Church had a fundamental tenet of faith which opposed vaccinations. Would this really have made a difference in Alberta for members of the Catholic Church? Would these people have been allowed to keep their jobs while all other vaccine objectors lost theirs? – despite the statements above suggesting that personal religious belief and liberties are not dependent upon that of an established belief system?

It’s not that I’m opposed to mandated civil laws in an effort to maintain public safety/health. For example, various kinds of jobs require one to be follow various personal health regulations – like working in the hospital or performing surgeries while masking and wearing sterile gloves and taking various vaccinations. There are also quarantine laws that are quite reasonable in various situations/settings. That being said, great efforts should be made to support personal religious/moral convictions as long as such support does not significantly interfere with the liberty and/or safety of others.

Any suggestions on any potential improvement of the wording of the SDA position on vaccines or other modern medical therapies and/or religious liberty statements?