Lee Cronin is the Regius Chair of Chemistry in the School of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow. He was elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and appointed to the Regius Chair of Chemistry in 2013. His research interests include: Artificial Life, Chemical Evolution, Chemputation, Digital Chemistry, and Assembly Theory.

James Mitchell Tour is an American chemist and nanotechnologist. He is a professor of chemistry, materials science, and nanoengineering at Rice University in Houston, Texas. His research interests include: Chemistry, Materials, Electronics, Nanotechnology, Graphene, and the Origin of Life.

Assembly Theory:

At the debate, Tour argued that the assembly of the building blocks required for living things was too complex for any known mindless natural mechanisms to achieve, and that Origin of Life researchers, like Cronin, had made no meaningful progress.  Cronin countered with his Assembly Theory, arguing that Assembly Theory had made meaningful progress in being able to detect living things (when compared to non-living things) with a very high degree of accuracy, and could be used to understand the Origin of Life as well.

What is Assembly Theory?

So, what is Assembly Theory? Evidently, it can be confusing to understand since Tour himself initially had a hard time understanding it, as did a number of other scientists.  Computer scientist and logic expert, Hector Zenil, for example, argues strongly that Cronin’s Assembly Theory is nothing more than a “dictionary-based compression algorithm” that is commonly used by computer algorithms to compress files (Link, Link, Link) – specifically the LZ77 compression algorithm. For example, say that there’s a string of AAAAA… measuring 1,000 characters in length.  A compression algorithm could simply code for this with a much shorter sequence by saying “Print A 1000 times”.  Such a high level of compressibility for this strong of As means that it has low “complexity”.

Basically, Assembly Theory is simply determining the “complexity” of a system in very much the same way as has historically already been done in computer science – by “Combining the power of Shannon Information/Entropy and Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity by way of Solomonoff-Levin Probability” (Link).  The problem is that none of these measures of “complexity” is a measure of meaningful or functional complexity.

Consider, for example, the following sequences:

• “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”
• “ax epm iwmxseigm uio wazirlf hgt pohmsat qwv hrg ouirm”

Both of these sequences have 54 characters each. Since both are composed of the same 26-letters of the English alphabet, plus a space, the amount of Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity is fairly similar. The probability of producing each of these two sequences with a random sequence generator is also similar. Therefore, both sequences have a fairly equal amount of Shannon information – even though one is “meaningful” while the other is not. This means that the mathematical formula for Shannon information is, in fact, quite simple. It is: I = -log2p where p is the probability of a particular sequence, out of all the potential options, being realized. Obviously, then, given that all other things are the same, the Shannon “information” of a sequence will increase as the length of the sequence increases – regardless of “meaning” or “function” or a complete lack thereof. Combined with Kolmogorov/Chaitin complexity (KCC) of a sequence (a measure of its compressibility relative to a particular compression mechanism, such as a Universal Turing Machine or UTM), what you end up with is “Assembly Theory”. Cronin’s claim that Assembly Theory is fundamentally different from Shannon Entropy and Kolmogorov Complexity is effectively challenged by Zenil (Link), with the exception of one small feature – “selection“.

Zenil holds two PhDs, one in Computer Science and one in Logic and Epistemology from Paris 1 Sorbonne/Ecole National Superiore, and Lille 1 in France. He is the Associate Professor/Senior Lecturer in Healthcare and Biomedical Engineering at King’s College London (KCL), where he leads and conducts research-develop technology at the intersection of information theory, complexity science, causal universal and beneficial AI at the Departments of Biomedical Computing and Digital Twins and the King’s Institute for AI.

See also Zenil’s fascinating blog on “The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory“

Only A Compression Algorithm?

The Element of Selection:

So, is it really true that Assembly Theory is nothing more than a compression algorithm?  Well, Onsi Fakhouri, an astrophysics researcher and tech executive, has an interesting take on this. In his discussion with James Tour, he noted that while Assembly Theory is a compression algorithm, it also adds the additional element of “selection” – the need for a “selector” to explain a given system or arrangement of building blocks (be it a living thing, an arrangement of poker cards, or Lego blocks).

Detecting the Existence of a Selector:

The detection of a need for a “selector” is detected in a very interesting manner.  Take a sequence of 1000 randomly generated letters.  Such a sequence likely has a high level of Shannon information or “entropy” and Kolmogorov complexity. However, so do most other randomly generated 1000-letter sequences. What makes a particular sequence “special” in a given environment?  Well, it would become very interesting if exactly the same sequence were realized over and over again (i.e., a high “copy number”).  This would indicate some kind of preferential “selection” taking place – a “selector” that prefers this particular sequence over all other sequences of similar size with otherwise equal Kolmogorov complexity.  And, the validity of this conclusion has been successfully tested and demonstrated by Cronin (Link). In fact, Cronin uses his Assembly Theory to detect the likely presence of living things, among living and nonliving options, blindly fed into a mass spectrometer, with a very high degree of accuracy – which is pretty cool.

A Selector Can Produce Complexity:

The basic argument is that the selection of any random thing can end up producing noticeable “complexity” above the background noise, which is true. Everyone agrees. However, the type of complexity is important here when it comes to explaining the existence of a living thing. A given selector in the environment, like a specific temperature acting on a material like water, may produce something more “complex” and even “specified”, like a particular type of snowflake. The same thing is true for a selector like gravity acting on gases comprised of randomly arranged atoms and cosmic dust to produce stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies. However, that’s not the same type of complexity as a living thing or a complex machine where multiple different types of parts are needed to interact in a very specific way to produce a very specific type of function (i.e., specified functional complexity at different levels having different minimum part requirements).  Assembly Theory doesn’t apply here since Assembly Theory isn’t concerned about the “right type” of selector that selects the “right thing” (Link).

Selecting the “Right Thing”:

In short, in order to explain the origin of life, or any other complex machine requiring multiple different interacting parts working in collective harmony to produce a given function, the selector itself must be even more functionally complex than what it is producing or creating.  Take a complex automobile, for example.  It could be produced entirely by robots in a factory. However, the robots themselves have to have access to be even more functionally complex than the automobiles that they are assembling, to including having access to all of the structurally complex information necessary to correctly assemble the automobiles so that they will actually function, in addition to their own structure and functional complexity.

Existence is the Proof?

Cronin’s argument that the ability of Assembly Theory to detect the need for a “selection mechanism” or a “selector”, even one as complex as would be needed to explain a living thing, proves that this living thing was the product of natural mechanisms.  Cronin argues as follows:

“There are three things here:  The environment, noise, and a thing. This thing, the object, it has several options. It can decay back into the noise and therefore have no consequences, just noise again, or it can go above the threshold and act on the resource, the noise, and pump that noise into more stuff.  And, as it keeps going, you know what happens in the end?  And this is how the first molecules and the first molecular networks complexified into a gigantic mess – because the mess wasn’t a mess. The mess was moving towards existence because the mess. Jim [Tour] doesn’t look at this over long enough of a time scale… everything on planet Earth is a product of selection. The contingency emerges with selection and the environment. Existence is the proof.” (Link)

Fakhouri counters with, “Existence is the poof??  No, Lee. It’s not”. (Link)  The argument that life exists, therefore life evolved by random chance, is a non sequitur – a very obvious circular argument. The best that Assembly Theory can do is detect that high-level selection has happened, but the very existence of life does not explain the mechanism of how life came to be – the actual nature of the “selector”.  The bottom line is that Cronin is just assuming what he wants to prove.  He hasn’t actually demonstrated anything regarding how any natural mindless mechanism could reasonably explain the origin of life…

Fakhouri asks the key question.  “What is the driving force behind selection?” (Link)

“If only we knew of a mechanism, something that routinely steps through combinatorial space to assemble functional objects. You know, functional objects like talks, and papers, and equations, and ideas like Assembly Theory. You know, a mechanism like, but nah – we all know that we’re not allowed to go there.”

Of course, we are “not allowed to go there” because the only known “selector” that is actually capable of producing complex machines, to include the type of machines necessary to produce a living thing, is an intelligent creator at the level of a God or God-like intelligence.

YouTube Video of Cronin vs. Tour:

Both of these scientists have a high degree of relevant expertise when it comes to evaluating designed systems. Rob Stadler obtained his PhD in medical engineering from the Harvard/MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology. James Tour obtained his Ph.D. in synthetic organic and organometallic chemistry from Purdue University and postdoctoral training in synthetic organic chemistry at the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University.

The Darwinian Tree of Life:

Their discussions focus on the proposed Darwinian “Tree of Life” where all of the diversity of living things on this planet is thought to have been derived over hundreds of millions of years via the addition of innumerable evolutionary modifications starting from the same original common ancestor (some single-celled organism in some warm pond some four billion or so years ago).

The Forest of Life:

Or, does the evidence better support a kind of “Forest of Life” (or a Dependency Graph Model) where all of the major kinds of living things were originally designed and front-loaded with all of the genetic information for extensive, but limited, diversity within their respective gene pools?

These fascinating discussions are well worth your time. I’m embedding the first video, starting at a section that kind of summarizes the arguments in favor of the “Tree” vs. the “Forest” of Life.  However, I would recommend watching the entirety of both discussions below.

Examples of Evolution in Action:

Citrate Evolution:

The second discussion, in particular, reviews the novel evolution of citrate metabolism, in the presence of oxygen within E. coli bacteria, demonstrating that nothing truly genetically novel evolves within the gene pool (based on just two gene duplication mutations without any changes to those genes or new structural enzymes evolving). Note that E. coli could already metabolize citrate in the absence of oxygen. Overall, this is based on an actual loss of genetic control over gene enzymatic production. This is actually a form of devolution, not devolution. A similar thing, a loss of genetic information, was the basis for lactase evolution in E. coli.

Whole Genome Duplication:

There is also an interesting side discussion with Sy Garte, PhD (biochemist, author, researcher, and former atheist) regarding the argument that whole genome duplication allows for the evolution of more complex features within the gene pool, but there is just no evidence for this. The “multicellular yeast” experiments didn’t show any differentiation or specialization of the multiple cells.  They were all identical. It turns out that genetic deletions (of three genes in particular) resulted in the same “multicellular” effect.  So, again, this is based on a loss, not a gain, of original genetic information within the gene pool.

Two Coordinated Mutations Require > 100 Million Years:

In fact, as highlighted in the third discussion below, theoretical statistical research on how long it would take to realize a novel function that required just two coordinated genetic point mutations (non-beneficial unless both mutations were realized within an organism) shows that this would require over 100 million years in a human population of 8 billion (Link– later amended to 216 million years). This is because the odds of just two coordinated mutations just coming along at random chance are 1 in ten million billion (10¹⁶). This, of course, means that statistically, humans could not have evolved from apes.  The required functional genetic gap distances for the millions of required genetic changes would simply have been too hard to cross in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time.

Rick Durrett & Deena Schmidt, Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution. Genetics. 2008 Nov;180(3):1501-9. (Link)

This paper was, ironically, written in an effort to discredit Michael Behe and his statistical arguments against the evolution of complex biomachines with a minimum required number of uniquely interacting parts.

They wrote that one of their aims was to “expose flaws in some of Michael Behe’s arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.”

Behe’s response to Durrett and Schmidt is also interesting: Link, Link

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy:

The best counterargument to the coordinated mutation problem is known as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Link). Lawrence Moran (2016) presented a particularly interesting problem regarding chloroquine resistance in malaria organisms (Plasmodium falciparum) in relatively short order (Link). At that time, it was thought that at least two separate mutations were required to achieve a selectable level of chloroquine resistance, where the initial mutation(s) were neutral with respect to function. Now, it is known that a selectable level of chloroquine resistance can be achieved with just a single point mutation (in different locations).

Chloroquine (CQ) resistance in Plasmodium falciparum malaria can be initiated by a single point mutation, specifically the K76T substitution (lysine to threonine at position 76) in the pfcrt gene. (Link)

The critical mutation conferring the first level of chloroquine resistance is found in aat1, a putative aminoacid transporter. (Link)

Chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum is a complex, polygenic trait primarily driven by multiple mutations (typically 4–10) in the pfcrt (Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter) gene. While a single point mutation can initiate low-level transport activity, full resistance requires a specific, multi-step evolutionary pathway. (Link)

Of course, once even low-level beneficial functional activity is realized, further stepwise improvements based on individual point mutations will happen rapidly under heavy selection pressure.

So, even given that a at least two mutations are required to acheive a seletable level of functionality, in the relatively large population of malarial organisms on the planet (much larger than the number of humans on the planet – likely in the trillions or quadrillions, as a single infected person can host billions of parasites), the first mutation is likely already present in a number of the individual organisms in the population. That means, of course, that the realization of the second necessary mutation could occur in relatively short order, particularly given the rapid generation time (24-72 hours).

In short, the argument of Larry Moran is that there are many different possible targets in sequence space that are potentially beneficial. In other words, hitting the same bullet hole isn’t so insurmountable if there are a great many bullet holes already in the target. Therefore, even though a lot of time may be required to hit one particular target, the odds that at least one target, among a great many options, will be hit in a short amount of time are actually very good. And, this is true at very low levels of functional complexity. However, with each linear increase in the minimum size and/or specificity required at higher and higher levels of functional complexity, the ratio of non-beneficial to potentially beneficial targets within sequence space increases exponentially – and the average time to success as well (Link, Link). The evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria is not a good example here since a selectable level of functionality is based on only a single point mutation.

Compare this to the gap distances in sequence space comprised of numerous specific mutational changes between each of the proposed steppingstones along the evolutionary pathway for complex multiprotein systems like the flagellar motility system.  It is for this very reason that no such evolutionary success has ever been demonstrated in any wild population or under laboratory conditions, nor has an evolutionary pathway even been proposed that could be reasonably traversed in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time (Link).

Rice Evolving Cold Weather Resistance:

Another interesting observation is that research done on rice gaining resistance to cold weather isn’t based on genetic mutations, but upon changes in epigenetic methylation rates. These changes are based on pre-programmed genetic options that already existed within the gene pool (Link).

YouTube Videos:

.

.

Egyptian Pyramids Surviving the Flood:

“How do you get around the pyramids having survived the flood? The wall engravings and tablets they left behind recorded their history in time by using things like total solar eclipses, dates easily verifiable today.”

As it turns out, the oldest solar eclipse linked to ancient Egypt is an annular eclipse that occurred on October 30, 1207 BC. Researchers identified this date by analyzing a biblical text from the Book of Joshua (“the sun stood still”) combined with Egyptian records of Pharaoh Merneptah’s campaign in Canaan (University of Cambridge & The Royal Astronomical Society journal Astronomy & Geophysics, October 2017). This is right in line with the Biblical account. There’s nothing here that undermines a recent or literal Creation week described in Genesis.

Clearly, the Egyptian pyramids weren’t built until after the Flood.  They didn’t survive the Flood because they weren’t there during the Flood.

Greenland Ice Sheet:

“The Greenland Ice Sheet has been core-drilled, and the ice exhibits at least 100,000 years’ worth of seasonal pollen layers.”

The Greenland Ice Sheet is not dated via “pollen layers”, but by actually counting the layers of ice.  And, when these layers become so thinned out that they cannot be visually distinguished, they are counted with the use of “chemical signatures”, such as with the use of oxygen isotopes.  The problem here is that this counting isn’t reliable since these chemical signatures within the ice can move over time and form false layers (Link). Another key problem with this argument is that Greenland was recently green.

Greenland was once Green:

Greenland, in particular, has not always been covered in ice.  It was once truly green – all over.  In fact, within the Hypsithermal period or “warm age” (which, according to mainstream thinking, is said to have lasted some 7,000 years, ending only some 2,500 years ago), the northernmost parts of the planet were very much warmer than they are today.  Studies on sedimentary cores carried out in the North Atlantic between Hudson Strait and Cape Hatteras indicate ocean temperatures of 18°C (verses about 8°C today in this region) during the height of this period of time between 4,000 to 6,000 years ago (again, according to mainstream thinking).  Given that the Greenland ice sheet is currently melting at a fairly rapid rate, it’s rather hard to believe that it existed at all during the very warm Hypsithermal period – a period when millions of mammoths along with many other types of warmer weather plants and animals happily lived within the Arctic Circle all around the globe along the very same latitudes as Greenland (Link). A 1995 study of mammoth remains located on Wrangel Island (on the border of the East-Siberian and Chukchi Seas) shows, according to radiocarbon dating, that mammoths persisted on this island till about 1,700 B.C. (Vartanyan S.L, et. al., 1995). And yet, somehow, Greenland was still covered with thick sheets of ice that are over 400,000 years old (Link), when everything around it was warm and balmy? supporting huge herds of animals and lush forests with fruit bearing trees and abundant grasslands?  This seems quite unlikely to me…

More at: Ancient Ice

The Ice Ages:

“The North Dakota State Geological Survey labels these glacial recessional terminal moraines—accumulations of rocks and other glacial sediment deposited at the farthest edge of a glacier’s advancement by the “bulldozer” effect of ice pushing debris. These moraines stretch as far as the eye can see—the southern limit of the last ice age that ended 10-12,000 years ago. Inside the walls of our church occasional discussions could be heard on their origins: “Were these landforms glacially caused or remnants of Noah’s flood?” And since the Bible didn’t talk about glaciers, it was the flood, 6,000 years ago, period. End of discussion!”

I don’t know any prominent creation scientist who believes in a literal Creation Week who doesn’t believe in the ice ages or that they happened after Noah’s Flood.  Before the Flood, there were no ice caps in the polar regions. The entire Earth was uniform in temperature.  Also, according to the Bible and the writings of Mrs. White, before the biblical Flood, there were no great oceans, mountain ranges, or deserts (Link).  The Earth was watered by underground springs and fountains driven by four great rivers (Genesis 2:10).  The ground was watered by dew each morning, so there was no need for rain.  In fact, it never rained.  That is why Genesis described the inhabitants of the pre-Flood world as laughing at Noah when he said that water would soon fall from the sky and flood the world.  Such a thing was a scientific impossibility in that day – that was until all of the fountains of the great deep were broken up within a single day (Genesis 7:11).

Right after the Flood, of course, the world would have been a rather warm place because of all the energy released during the catastrophe. There were no ice caps on the poles since even within the Arctic Circle, it was warm and lush all around the world, harboring enormous forests and fruit-bearing trees as well as vast grasslands and millions of animals – including large mammoths, deer, bison, etc. This situation lasted for hundreds of years after the Flood.  However, when the first ice age came, it came so suddenly that it trapped, froze, and preserved millions of these trees and animals all around the Arctic Circle.  This means, of course, that Greenland was also once very green – in very recent history (Link).

The ice ages started suddenly and progressed rapidly a few hundred years after Noah’s Flood (Link), until now, what is New York City was covered by more than 2,000 feet of ice. In fact, this created a very different environment in a relatively thin belt around the middle of the Earth compared to what exists today.  During the time of Abraham, Canaan and the regions of the Middle East looked very different from how these places look today.  Today, these places are basically desert environments.  Back then, they truly were lands “flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8).  They were rich, verdant gardens. Even the Sahara Desert was rich and verdant at that time, covered with a huge lake called “Mega-Chad” – a colossal lake spanning ~400,000 square kilometers (about the size of Germany) during the “African Humid Period”, which is thought to have peaked, in mainstream thinking, around 5,000 years ago before rapidly drying out.  All of North Africa was green and lush.  It was a very very different world during this time.

The Scablands:

“The 40-100 cataclysmic Missoula glacial ice dam flood-bursts in the states of Washington, Idaho, and Montana were concentrated between 13,000 and 15,000 years ago—all happening at the end of the earth’s last ice age.”

Consider that scientists originally believed and strongly argued that the Scablands of Oregon and Washington State took millions of years to produce.  It took J Harlen Bretz many decades of argument before mainstream geologists finally accepted the reality that these features can be produced catastrophically (Link).  And, they only agreed with Bretz once they realized that they didn’t have to believe in Noah’s Flood to explain the Scablands.  The fact is that these Scablands were formed after Noah’s Flood as well, via catastrophic ice dam failures.  The dating of “13,000 – 15,000 years ago” is based on radiocarbon dating, which works pretty well as long as one knows that the ratio of atmospheric C12 vs. C14 is throughout history – that it doesn’t change.

Carbon 14 Dating:

“Frequently I have people come to me objecting to the use of carbon 14 radiometric dating. However, in scientific circles it is considered as being highly reliable to around 50,000 years, and extremely accurate to 15,000 years.”

Carbon-14 dating is based on the simple idea that all living things are built based on the carbon atom. And, some of these carbon atoms that a living thing takes in while alive are radioactive carbon-14 atoms.  These atoms have a half-life of around 5,730 years. Of course, when something dies, it stops taking in carbon-14.  So, the original amount of carbon-14 starts to decay over time. So, all one has to do to find out when the remains of a living thing were actually alive is to measure the amount of carbon-14 in the remains and compare that amount to the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. It all seems very simple and straightforward until one considers that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere doesn’t stay the same over time – especially when considering something of worldwide catastrophic proportions like the Noachian Flood that buried huge amounts of carbon from living things, removing it from the biosphere of the Earth (Link).

That’s right. The ratio of atmospheric ¹⁴C to ¹²C doesn’t stay the same over time, but changes.  Also, there are regional variations in the ratio that must be considered. This is why carbon-14 dating isn’t an entirely independent dating method, but requires calibration against other dating methods – like various historically-derived events and tree-ring dating for instance (Link). Of course, tree ring dating is, in turn, calibrated by other dating techniques, primarily carbon-14 dating – which is just a bit circular. Also, attempts to use amino acid racemization rates as a dating method, with efforts to help to calibrate radiocarbon dating, have failed. AAR dating methods have themselves also turned out to require calibration by radiocarbon dating (Link).

What’s also particularly problematic about carbon-14 dating is that it strongly favors the literal creation week perspective, not the Darwinian perspective.  Along with flexible soft tissues and sequencable proteins, and even fragments of DNA, many large dinosaur bones also contain quite a bit of ¹⁴C within their preserved soft tissues (Link).  Given that ¹⁴C would be undetectable beyond 80,000 years or so, the presence of significant quantities of ¹⁴C within their remains, without any reasonable evidence of “contamination”, speaks very strongly in favor of the Biblical account of a literal Creation Week within recent history.

Dinosaur Soft Tissues are also a Clock:

In addition, dinosaur soft tissues (which contain sequencable dinosaur proteins and even fragments of original dinosaur DNA) are themselves a type of “clock” that measures the passage of time. Soft tissues, proteins, and DNA within living things start to decay relatively rapidly upon death.  In less than a 100k years, all such traces would be wiped out at ambient temperatures, based on kinetic chemistry alone (Link). Increasing temperatures vibrate atoms and molecules more and more rapidly, leading to more and more rapid decay based on heat alone. So, what is the best explanation as to how they could possibly survive many tens of millions of years?

ScienceDirect published a relevant article: A chemical framework for the preservation of fossil vertebrate cells and soft tissues.

The proposed mechanisms are:

Indeed, two mechanisms [Collins et al., 1998] [Schweitzer et al., 2014] [Wiemann et al., 2018] [Boatman et al., 2019] have been proposed to explain reports of soft tissues and biomolecules within ancient vertebrates. Both result in the intra- and intermolecular crosslinking and chemical transformation of reactant biomolecules, a process referred to as *in-situ* polymerization.

There are multiple problems with these commonly proposed mechanisms.

The first problem is that crosslinking proteins (the “Fenton Reaction”) and polymerization only improve protein survival to a relatively small degree. Even proteins completely fixed with the use of formaldehyde still break down relatively rapidly under ambient temperatures. Significant DNA degradation within formalin-fixed tissues (up to 53% decrease in quantity) is observed after 4–6 years of storage. Significant protein reductions in immuno-intensity are often observed starting from 6 to 36 months. Specific markers, such as PD-L1, show significantly decreased staining after 3 years. Higher storage temperatures accelerate decay. Mary Schweitzer’s experiments only took place over two years. Her experiments do not explain how proteins can resist kinetic decay over tens of thousands, much less millions of years.

Heat, by itself, causes the protein molecules to vibrate and fall apart relatively quickly (well less than a million years for the average expected temperatures affecting dinosaur remains). And, this is just heat. Dinosaur remains are also known to have been irradiated by radioactive materials that they absorbed (uranium, radium, or thorium from surrounding groundwater and sediment). Another problem is that many of these dinosaur proteins lack evidence of such crosslinking (described by microbiologist Kevin Anderson). Fenton reactions leave chemical signatures in that they change the chemical state of various amino acids. These telltale chemical signatures just aren’t present in dinosaur proteins. Also, Fenton reactions, like formalin fixation, make soft tissues hard, not flexible and elastic. The dinosaur soft tissues maintain their softness and flexibility. Further, there is evidence for the double-stranded structure of DNA in some of these dinosaur remains, yet the Fenton reaction destroys, rather than preserves, this double-stranded structure. Another problem is that some of the dinosaur soft tissue remains were not associated with hemoglobin (and its iron) at all (as in the collagen within a Triceratops horn).

In short, all of these explanations came after the discovery of dinosaur soft tissues as an attempt to explain away what was previously thought to be scientifically impossible due to well-known and well-demonstrated rates of protein and DNA decay at various temperatures. These ad hoc explanations really don’t solve the problem because they are simply not adequate.

They also don’t explain why so much radiocarbon is present within these dinosaur soft tissues, which shouldn’t be there after just 100k years, and they don’t explain the problem of detrimental mutation rates that would have wiped out the dinosaurs, reptiles in general, birds, and mammals all within well less than a million years.

DNA Detrimental Mutation Rates (also a Clock):

Another reality of living things that many haven’t considered is that the gene pools of all complex organisms that reproduce sexually (all humans, apes, mammals, reptiles, birds, etc.) add more and more detrimental mutations in each generation, without being eliminated by natural selection.  These organisms simply do not reproduce fast enough for natural selection to keep up with the very high detrimental mutation rate that affects all of their gene pools. That means, of course, that everything is evolving downhill, not uphill.  We are all headed for eventual extinction and could not have existed in the past beyond even a million years (Link).

This problem, by itself, powerfully undermines NeoDarwinian evolution and the concept of “Deep Time” for living things on this planet that reproduce sexually. Yet, this problem is right in line with the Biblical description of the deterioration of humans and animals over time, not the improvement.

Two Coordinated Mutations Require > 100 Million Years:

In fact, as highlighted in the third discussion below, theoretical statistical research on how long it would take to realize a novel function that required just two coordinated genetic point mutations (non-beneficial unless both mutations were realized within an organism) shows that this would require over 100 million years in a human population of 8 billion (Link– later amended to 216 million years). This is because the odds of just two coordinated mutations just coming along at random chance are 1 in ten million billion (10¹⁶). This, of course, means that statistically, humans could not have evolved from apes.  The required functional genetic gap distances for the millions of required genetic changes would simply have been too hard to cross in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time.

Rick Durrett & Deena Schmidt, Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution. Genetics. 2008 Nov;180(3):1501-9. (Link)

This paper was, ironically, written in an effort to discredit Michael Behe and his statistical arguments against the evolution of complex biomachines with a minimum required number of uniquely interacting parts.

They wrote that one of their aims was to “expose flaws in some of Michael Behe’s arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.”

Behe’s response to Durrett and Schmidt is also interesting: Link, Link

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy:

The best counterargument to the coordinated mutation problem is known as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Link). Lawrence Moran (2016) presented a particularly interesting problem regarding chloroquine resistance in malaria organisms (Plasmodium falciparum) in relatively short order (Link). At that time, it was thought that at least two separate mutations were required to achieve a selectable level of chloroquine resistance, where the initial mutation(s) were neutral with respect to function. Now, it is known that a selectable level of chloroquine resistance can be achieved with just a single point mutation (in different locations).

Chloroquine (CQ) resistance in Plasmodium falciparum malaria can be initiated by a single point mutation, specifically the K76T substitution (lysine to threonine at position 76) in the pfcrt gene. (Link)

The critical mutation conferring the first level of chloroquine resistance is found in aat1, a putative aminoacid transporter. (Link)

Chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum is a complex, polygenic trait primarily driven by multiple mutations (typically 4–10) in the pfcrt (Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter) gene. While a single point mutation can initiate low-level transport activity, full resistance requires a specific, multi-step evolutionary pathway. (Link)

Of course, once even low-level beneficial functional activity is realized, further stepwise improvements based on individual point mutations will happen rapidly under heavy selection pressure.

So, even given that a at least two mutations are required to acheive a seletable level of functionality, in the relatively large population of malarial organisms on the planet (much larger than the number of humans on the planet – likely in the trillions or quadrillions, as a single infected person can host billions of parasites), the first mutation is likely already present in a number of the individual organisms in the population. That means, of course, that the realization of the second necessary mutation could occur in relatively short order, particularly given the rapid generation time (24-72 hours).

In short, the argument is that there are many different possible targets in sequence space that are potentially beneficial. In other words, hitting the same bullet hole isn’t so insurmountable if there are a great many bullet holes already in the target. Therefore, even though a lot of time may be required to hit one particular target, the odds that at least one target, among a great many options, will be hit in a short amount of time are actually very good. And, this is true at very low levels of functional complexity. However, with each linear increase in the minimum size and/or specificity required at higher and higher levels of functional complexity, the ratio of non-beneficial to potentially beneficial targets within sequence space increases exponentially – and the average time to success as well (Link, Link). The evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria is not a good example here since a selectable level of functionality is based on only a single point mutation.

Compare this to the gap distances in sequence space comprised of numerous specific mutational changes between each of the proposed steppingstones along the evolutionary pathway for complex multiprotein systems like the flagellar motility system.  It is for this very reason that no such evolutionary success has ever been demonstrated in any wild population or under laboratory conditions, nor has an evolutionary pathway even been proposed that could be reasonably traversed in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time (Link).

Ancient Archeological Sites:

“According to National Geographic (subscription required), archeologists have continued to explore the “tell” upon which the biblical Jericho is assumed to have stood, and are now down to the site’s first fortifications of human settlement, which date to 10,000 BCE. This parallels the recent archeological find of the Göbekli Tepe site in southeastern Turkey that dates to 11,000+ years ago. This is surpassed by the recently-discovered Rimrock Draw Rockshelter in Oregon, which dates to 18,000 years ago and shows that the human occupants consumed now extinct species of giant land mammals.”

Again, all of these sites are based on radiocarbon dating techniques, which assume a constant atmospheric ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C (see above).  None of these “dates” is written in stone, so to speak, with credibility that undermines the Biblical account given to us by God Himself, who was actually there when it all happened.

Ancient Cultures with similar Creation dates:

As an interesting aside, note that many ancient cultures also have a similar date for creation of less than 10k years. The Anglo-Saxons, for instance, start history 5,200 years before Christ (according to the Laud and Parker Chronicles). The Nennius’s record of ancient British history has 5,228 years from creation to Christ, the Irish chronology has a date of about 4000 B.C. for creation, the Egyptians 6081 B.C., the Chinese 6157 B.C., the Samarians 4427 B.C., and the Mayan calendar began September 6, 3114 B.C., with a “Great Flood” occurring around this time as well. Isn’t it interesting that all of these histories are much more in line with the Biblical account and SDA claims compared to the claims of theistic evolutionists? What? Nothing recorded until just a few thousand years ago? Despite modern humans existing for hundreds of thousands of years?

Flood Myths of the Americas:

Separated from any influence by Jewish culture or the Flood stories of Mesopotamia, the Orient, or Europe, the Flood Myths of the Americas are very interesting in that they are essentially universal to all ancient peoples in the Americas and are surprisingly similar to the Biblical account of Noah’s Flood in many respects.

The Toltecs had historical paintings and traditions that told of an ancient flood, which they said occurred 1716 years after the creation of the world (this is within 100 years of the biblical timeframe). Only a few escaped the flood, floating inside a “toplipetlacali,” an enclosed vessel. After the flood, they said that “men multiplied and made a very high zacuali … which means the highest tower, at which they sought to find shelter when the Second World would be destroyed. In time, the languages were changed and, not understanding each other, the people went to different parts of the world.” They said they arrived in Mexico “520 years after the flood had passed, which are five ages.”

Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, Primera Relación de la Historia de los Tultecas, in Antiquities of Mexico, ed. Lord Kingsborough, vol. ix (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1848), pp. 321-322. Ixtlilxochitl, Relación Sucinta En Forma de Memorial de las Historias de Nueva España, Relación , in Antiquities of Mexico, vol. ix, p. 450.

The Aztecs, too, have ancient paintings that depict the flood, showing one couple safely floating inside a hollow tree as the world was destroyed by water. In another ancient pictorial manuscript from Mexico (Codex Vaticanus 3733), we find the depiction of a woman talking to a serpent and two children behind the serpent, contending with each other. The similarity of this painting to Genesis is obvious, and it is confirmed by the literature and traditions from Mexico. As Humboldt explains, the woman is Cihuacohuatl, the “woman of our flesh,” and the “serpent woman.” She is considered the mother of the human race, and she is “always represented with a great serpent.” She is considered the mother of two twin children (they are shown in this exhibit). She is also considered to have “fallen from her first state of happiness and innocence.”

Alexander de Humboldt, Researches Concerning the Institutions & Monuments of the Ancient Inhabitants of America, trans. Helen Maria Williams, vol. 1 (London: Longman, 1814), pp. 195-196.

The Michoacáns told the first Spanish colonizers their account of the flood in which their Noah, whom they called Tezpi, “embarked in a spacious ‘acalli’ with his wife, his children, several animals, and grain, the preservation of which was of importance to mankind. When the great spirit, Tezcatlipoca, ordered the waters to withdraw, Tezpi sent out from his bark a vulture.” This bird did not return to him, finding many carcasses to eat from. Then, “Tezpi sent out other birds, one of which, the hummingbird alone, returned, holding in its beak a branch covered with leaves.” The man, seeing that fresh vegetation was growing on the earth again, left his vessel “near the mountain of Colhuacan.”

Alexander de Humboldt, Researches Concerning the Institutions & Monuments of the Ancient Inhabitants of America, trans. Helen Maria Williams, vol. 2 (London: Longman, 1814), p. 23. See also: Antonio de Herrera y Torsedillas, Historia General de los Hechos de los Castellanos, Década Tercera, Book 3 (Madrid: Royal Office of Nicolas Rodriguez, 1726), p. 94.

According to the Lacandon, an isolated jungle tribe of southeastern Mexico, a god instructed his son-in-law “that he should build a boat, in which they should enclose one man and one woman of every lineage, and samples of all types of animals, and seeds of all trees and plants of the forest. … Then it began to rain without stopping. It was a deluge. … All mankind perished, except those who were in the boat.”

Didier Boremanse, “Ortogenesis en la Literatura Maya Lacandona,” Mesoamerica, vol. 10, no. 17 (Guatemala: 1989), pp. 70-71.

The Cabécar seemingly have combined the memory of the Garden of Eden and the flood. They spoke of a magical tree, a woman who was bitten by a serpent, a test by a god named Sibu to see whether the people obeyed him, the flood, divine judgment, and the survival of a favored few on a giant raft. Sibu “saw that all the earth’s inhabitants behaved very badly, that they forgot and denied that he was the one who had created them.” So he sent the flood. “The majority of the people had died, having drowned in the punishment.” But others who “kept the commands” of Sibu were helped, and were enabled to build an enormous raft, by which they survived the flood and waited until the waters subsided.

Rodrigo Salazar, Las Leyendas del Duchi (San Jose: Departamento de Publicaciones del Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1977). pp. 25-54.

“There was a shaman who lived back when the world was inundated,” told the Ashaninkas of Peru. “One night, he had a dream in which he was warned of a coming flood, and that he should build a great raft with a house on it.” He gave his grandsons instructions to cut wood, make nails, and build the raft. “When the shaman saw that everything was finished, he saw that a tapir was coming to get on the raft. He saw all types of animals come as well.” He told his grandsons to store up foods on the raft. Some of his grandsons, who were making merry, scoffed and said, “Look at our grandfather. From where will this flood come that is going to fill the earth?” Then the old man said, “Do not call me a liar. Thus I was warned in a dream the other day. You yourselves have seen the animals come to the raft. You come also.” Soon, “a strong rain fell and began to fill the earth with water. … The raft continued floating higher and higher upon the waters.” After a long time and many difficulties, “when the earth had dried out from the flood, the children of the shaman dispersed in every direction. They also married among themselves, for there were no other women. So the people multiplied to the numbers which we have today. If it had not been for that shaman, we would not exist today.”

Ronald J. Anderson, Cuentos folkloricos de los Asheninca, vol. 1 (Lima, 2008), pp. 143-155.

See also: Link

The Orion Nebula:

“Early astronomers thought they saw a dark hole in its middle which was interpreted by many early Adventists as the passageway from which Jesus would return to earth at the second coming, and through which the saints would travel on the return to the heavenly house of God. However, today the James Webb Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope are recording thousands of amazing pictures of this region. They find no hole. Instead, the region is a congested, super-hot, explosive nuclear furnace forming countless new stars, exploding supernovas, and colliding stars and planets. Is it time for us to have meaningful conversations about the Orion Nebula?”

Ellen White describes an “open space” in “Orion” through which will one day come the “City of God” (Early Writings, p. 41). This was in line with the description of Joseph Bates regarding the Orion Nebula (The Opening Heavens, Pamphlet 1, p.6). Of course, the Orion Nebula is huge, making the term “congested” a rather relative term. Who are we to say that Jesus can’t come through that region? I dare say that He wouldn’t be worried by the “furnace” of Orion.

Also, there does appear to be an actual “open space” or “hole” in the “center” of the Orion Nebula:

In the center of the nebula is a dark patch. Normally, a dark patch such as this would indicate a dense cloud of cosmic dust, obscuring the stars and nebula behind it. However, in this image we can see that the patch remains strikingly dark, even when the APEX observations are included. Thanks to these APEX observations, combined with infrared observations from other telescopes, astronomers believe that the patch is in fact a hole or cavity in the nebula excavated by material flowing out of the star V380 Orionis. For once, it truly is a hole in the sky!

SO, Garching, Germany, A dark patch in Orion star formation, Published: January 24, 2013, Last updated on May 18, 2023 (Astronomy.com)

See also: Link

As an aside, evidence suggests that a black hole, estimated at 200 times the sun’s mass, likely resides within the Orion Nebula. Proposed in 2012 by an international team, this potential black hole is located within the Trapezium Cluster and could explain the high velocities of the young stars in that region (Link).

An Evil God and the Credibility of His Word:

For Seventh-day Adventists in particular, the claims of theistic evolutionists undermine the credibility of both the Bible and Ellen White, and put God in a very bad light.  The fact is that most world-class scholars of Hebrew, particularly secular scholars, agree that the author(s) of the Genesis account intended to convey a literal account of a literal creation week (Link). Such an understanding does increase the overall credibility of the Bible and of the rational basis for the Sabbath as a memorial of our Creation. For God to have created a Sabbath day of rest as a memorial to vast eons of evolutionary progress on this planet makes far less sense and also paints God as calling something “very good” that is actually full of evil, pain, and suffering for sentient creatures over vast spans of time – unrelated to “sin” or the “fall” of mankind. Such a view also paints God as being rather coy with us by not sharing with us the actual truth of our origins. If millions of years of life existing and evolving on this planet were a reality, it would have been relatively simple to say so in the Genesis account of origins, rather than to leave it to Darwin to explain. The official SDA position on origins paints God in a far better light – and also enjoys the weight of true empirical evidence.

I know that Pastor LeMert is not alone in these questions or thinking on this topic.  However, for a Pastor who is employed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it is a form of theft, of robbery from his employer, to be promoting ideas as “true” that strike directly at the clearly stated “fundamental” goals and ideas of the SDA Church.  After all, Pastor LeMert’s article strikes directly at what the Church stands for as a Fundamental part of the Gospel Message of Hope that we, as a church organization, are striving to share with the world. Sure, Pastor LeMert is now retired, so I guess he is free to say whatever he wants at this point. It’s just that he was preaching his theistic evolutionary ideas during his 41+ years of employment with the Church and is now actively undermining one of the key reasons for the very existence of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The Spanish Version has now been updated as well, removing Valenzuela’s article (Link).

Update (3/9/26):

The Pacific Union Conference issued the following statement:

A Message to Our Community Regarding “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture”

by Ray Tetz

Ray Tetz, Publisher

Pacific Union Conference

March 9, 2026

The views expressed in the article “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,” which appeared in the February 2026 issue of the Pacific Union Recorder, solely represent the perspective of author, Alberto Valenzuela, and do not constitute the policy of the Pacific Union Conference.

The Pacific Union Conference is in full support of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Belief #6 – Creation states, “God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation, the Lord made ‘the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them’ and rested on the seventh day. Thus, He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished, it was ‘very good,’ declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1-2; 5; 11; Exod. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Isa. 45:12, 18; Acts 17:24; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; 11:3; Rev. 10:6; 14:7.)”

A key feature of the Pacific Union Recorder is to nurture thoughtful discourse about our rich and diverse history, culture, convictions, stated beliefs, and values, within our shared Adventist perspective.

Dr. Leonard Brand, Emeritus Professor of Biology and Paleontology, Loma Linda University, Earth and Biological Sciences, has accepted our invitation to provide an article for the May 2026 issue of the Pacific Union Recorder that will present his perspective on science and religion. Other organizations have expressed their viewpoints in various ways on their own media platforms, and we are grateful for their engagement on this topic.

Alberto Valenzuela is not an advocate of theistic, nor Darwinian, evolution, as he explains in this statement:

In the February 2026 issue of the Pacific Union Recorder, I authored the article “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture.” After careful reflection and in response to concerns that have been expressed, I wish to offer a clear clarification and apology. The views presented in that article were my personal reflections and do not represent the official position of the Pacific Union Conference. I want to state unequivocally that I am not an advocate of either Darwinian evolution or theistic evolution. I fully affirm the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Fundamental Belief #6: Creation, including a literal six-day creation, creatio ex nihilo, the Sabbath as its memorial, and the complete framework of our biblical doctrine of origins.

It was never my intent to undermine confidence in Scripture or to create confusion. My purpose was to encourage thoughtful dialogue between faith and science. However, I recognize that certain statements and sources in the article were not expressed with sufficient clarity and may have caused misunderstanding. I regret that and apologize sincerely to those who were troubled by the article. If my words became a stumbling block to any believer, I ask forgiveness. I remain firmly committed to presenting a faith-affirming message that upholds the authority of Scripture and the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. —Alberto Valenzuela

. . . .

While I am encouraged to see that the Pacific Union Conference is still in “full support” of the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I find it disingenuous for Valenzuela to claim that he was only trying to “encourage thoughtful dialogue” while not actually “advocating for either Darwinian evolution or theistic evolution”.  How is this possible when he cited Pope John Paul II and his claim that “evolution is more than a hypothesis” and wrote that the Theory of Evolution is “foundational, not speculative”? In support of this claim, he argued that the Tiktaalik fossil “bridges the gap between fish and land animals” and that this is “not chance—it is evidence.”  He clearly wrote that efforts to detect intelligent design in nature “masks theology as science”.  How does this not undermine our ability to read and understand “God’s Second Book” and our ability to see Him through the works of His own hands? (Romans 1:20).  Valenzuela offered nothing in favor of a Literal Creation Week and leaves little room to conclude that he believes that there is nothing beyond blind faith to support this notion.

These statements are just too clear for Valenzuela to now claim that he is actually in full support of a literal Creation Week and Noachian Flood as promoted by the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In addition, he also published his article without any review or advice from the Conference leadership, knowing full well that his position is out of line with the Church’s Fundamental Beliefs. This clear break of trust in an important position of leadership disqualifies him from continuing on as Editor of the Recorder.

An additional concern is that the Spanish version of Valenzuela’s article remains on the website(s) for the Pacific Union Conference, while the English version has been removed (Link, Link, Link).

Now, I am encouraged by the request of the Pacific Union Conference for Leonard Brand to publish an article in the Recorder on the intersection between science and religion.  I’ve known Brand for a long time. Not only is he a thoughtful, well-published research scientist, he is also an advocate for Biblical Creation. I am eager to read his article.

________________

Update (3/4/26):

As of today, the Pacific Union Recorder has removed Valenzuela’s article from the English version. Pages 22-25 have been deleted (Link), and the specific link to this article on the Pacific Union Conference website is now inactive (Link). However, the Spanish version is still posted on the Recorder’s website (Link), and is linked in the Pacific Union Conference archives of the Recorder (Link). Also, Valenzuela maintains his position as Editor of the Recorder, listed in the March edition, and even wrote another article, entitled “Fundamental Belief #24: God for Us: Hope, Assurance, and the Heavenly Sanctuary” (p. 8-9).

While there is some token progress being made, after a delay of a few weeks, additional progress is needed and encouraged.  Like the English version, the Spanish version should also be removed and a public apology issued by the Recorder and the Pacific Union Conference, with some kind of assurance that a process where articles are vetted more carefully will be put in place going forward. Also, I’m sorry, but allowing Valenzuela to remain as the Editor of the Recorder is not a good idea at this point, nor is allowing him to continue to write articles for the Recorder.  Is it not ironic that he now publishes an article promoting Fundamental Belief #24? after just thrashing Fundamental Beliefs 6 & 8? effectively undermining the very bedrock for our “Hope and Assurance”?

_________________

This is an Open Letter to Elders Bradford Newton and Erton Köhler, Presidents of the Pacific Union and General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

This letter is in regard to an article published in the most recent Pacific Union Recorder by the Editor Alberto Valenzuela, promoting the Darwinian story of origins as being superior to the Biblical account of a literal Creation Week and a literal worldwide Noachian Flood.  Valenzuela’s article, entitled “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture” (Link, Link) strikes at the very heart of what the SDA Church regards as “Fundamental” to the Gospel Message of Hope that we are responsible to spread throughout the World before the Second Coming of Jesus to take us all Home.

Several church leaders contacted me, asking me to write a response to this article, which I published on February 13th (Link).  Several other pastors and religious liberty attorneys have also published their concerns in public forums (Link, Link, Link, Link, Link).  It has been almost two weeks now, and still, there has been no official response from the Pacific Union Leadership.  The online links published on the Union’s website (noted above) and Facebook page to Valenzuela’s article remain active (both Spanish and English versions), and no retraction or apology has been issued to the wide readership of the Recorder (a distribution of around 76,000).

Something should have been done about this before now.  It may be true that Valenzuela published this on his own, as the Editor of the Recorder, without the permission or oversight of the Union Leadership.  However, the lack of response from the leadership of the Union ends up being viewed as tacit support for what was published against the Fundamentals of the Church – similar to the open and brazen promotion of Darwinian evolution at La Sierra University some 15 years ago.  The culpability here is now much larger – well beyond Valenzuela and his theistic evolutionary views on origins.  Letting this simply pass in silence only makes things worse.  It suggests that an entire Union of the SDA Church is in open opposition to the stated fundamental goals and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church at large.  It supports a very harmful division within the Church and makes it appear to those on the outside that we are not united on a very key issue – an issue upon which our very name is based. We should be forming a united spearhead on this, not taking a tentative backseat on a topic that strikes at the heart of Biblical credibility and the rational basis for the very reason for the Hope that we have been given.

I therefore urge you, as leaders of the Church, to decisively address this issue before more damage is done.

Sincerely,

Sean Pitman, MD

The Spanish Version has now been updated as well, removing Valenzuela’s article (Link).

Update (3/9/26):

The Pacific Union Conference issued the following statement:

A Message to Our Community Regarding “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture”

by Ray Tetz

Ray Tetz, Publisher

Pacific Union Conference

March 9, 2026

The views expressed in the article “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture,” which appeared in the February 2026 issue of the Pacific Union Recorder, solely represent the perspective of author, Alberto Valenzuela, and do not constitute the policy of the Pacific Union Conference.

The Pacific Union Conference is in full support of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Belief #6 – Creation states, “God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation, the Lord made ‘the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them’ and rested on the seventh day. Thus, He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days that together with the Sabbath constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished, it was ‘very good,’ declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1-2; 5; 11; Exod. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Isa. 45:12, 18; Acts 17:24; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; 11:3; Rev. 10:6; 14:7.)”

A key feature of the Pacific Union Recorder is to nurture thoughtful discourse about our rich and diverse history, culture, convictions, stated beliefs, and values, within our shared Adventist perspective.

Dr. Leonard Brand, Emeritus Professor of Biology and Paleontology, Loma Linda University, Earth and Biological Sciences, has accepted our invitation to provide an article for the May 2026 issue of the Pacific Union Recorder that will present his perspective on science and religion. Other organizations have expressed their viewpoints in various ways on their own media platforms, and we are grateful for their engagement on this topic.

Alberto Valenzuela is not an advocate of theistic, nor Darwinian, evolution, as he explains in this statement:

In the February 2026 issue of the Pacific Union Recorder, I authored the article “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture.” After careful reflection and in response to concerns that have been expressed, I wish to offer a clear clarification and apology. The views presented in that article were my personal reflections and do not represent the official position of the Pacific Union Conference. I want to state unequivocally that I am not an advocate of either Darwinian evolution or theistic evolution. I fully affirm the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Fundamental Belief #6: Creation, including a literal six-day creation, creatio ex nihilo, the Sabbath as its memorial, and the complete framework of our biblical doctrine of origins.

It was never my intent to undermine confidence in Scripture or to create confusion. My purpose was to encourage thoughtful dialogue between faith and science. However, I recognize that certain statements and sources in the article were not expressed with sufficient clarity and may have caused misunderstanding. I regret that and apologize sincerely to those who were troubled by the article. If my words became a stumbling block to any believer, I ask forgiveness. I remain firmly committed to presenting a faith-affirming message that upholds the authority of Scripture and the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. —Alberto Valenzuela

. . . .

While I am encouraged to see that the Pacific Union Conference is still in “full support” of the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, I find it disingenuous for Valenzuela to claim that he was only trying to “encourage thoughtful dialogue” and that he was not actually “advocating for either Darwinian evolution or theistic evolution”.  How is this possible when he cited Pope John Paul II and his claim that “evolution is more than a hypothesis”? and wrote that the Theory of Evolution is “foundational, not speculative”? In support of this claim, Valenzuela forcefully asserted that the Tiktaalik fossil “bridges the gap between fish and land animals” and that this is “not chance—it is evidence.”  He clearly wrote that efforts to detect intelligent design in nature “masks theology as science”.  How does this not undermine our ability to read and understand “God’s Second Book” and our ability to see Him through the works of His own hands? (Romans 1:20).  Valenzuela offered nothing in favor of a Literal Creation Week and leaves little room to conclude that he believes that there is nothing beyond blind faith to support this notion.

These statements are just too clear for Valenzuela to now claim that he is actually in full support of a literal Creation Week and worldwide Noachian Flood as promoted by the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In addition, he also published his article without any review or advice from the Conference leadership, knowing full well that his position is out of line with the Church’s Fundamental Beliefs. This clear break of trust, while occupying an important position of leadership, disqualifies him from continuing on as Editor of the Recorder.

An additional concern is that the Spanish version of Valenzuela’s article remains on the website(s) for the Pacific Union Conference, while the English version has been removed (Link, Link, Link).

Now, I am encouraged by the request of the Pacific Union Conference for Leonard Brand to publish an article in the May issue of the Recorder on the intersection between science and religion.  I’ve known Brand for a long time. Not only is he a thoughtful, well-published research scientist, he is also an advocate for Biblical Creation. I am eager to read his article.

_________________

Update (3/4/26):

As of today, the Pacific Union Recorder has removed Valenzuela’s article from the English version. Pages 22-25 have been deleted (Link), and the specific link to this article on the Pacific Union Conference website is now inactive (Link). However, the Spanish version is still posted on the Recorder’s website (Link), and is linked in the Pacific Union Conference archives of the Recorder (Link). Also, Valenzuela maintains his position as Editor of the Recorder, listed in the March edition, and even wrote another article, entitled “Fundamental Belief #24: God for Us: Hope, Assurance, and the Heavenly Sanctuary” (p. 8-9).

While there is some token progress being made, after a delay of a few weeks, additional progress is needed and encouraged.  Like the English version, the Spanish version should also be removed and a public apology issued by the Recorder and the Pacific Union Conference, with some kind of assurance that a process where articles are vetted more carefully will be put in place going forward. Also, I’m sorry, but allowing Valenzuela to remain as the Editor of the Recorder is not a good idea at this point, nor is allowing him to continue to write articles for the Recorder.  Is it not ironic that he now publishes an article promoting Fundamental Belief #24? after just thrashing Fundamental Beliefs 6 & 8? effectively undermining the very bedrock for our “Hope and Assurance”?

________________

I was pretty surprised today to be sent this month’s copy of the Pacific Union Recorder, a Seventh-day Adventist publication representing the Pacific Union of the Church, containing an article written by Alberto Valenzuela, the Editor of the Recorder, entitled, “Honoring God Through Science and Scripture” (Link, Link). I was expecting a nice article supporting the Seventh-day Adventist perspective on Creation.  What I actually read was the forceful promotion of Darwinian-style evolutionary arguments in favor of sentient creatures existing, evolving, suffering, and dying on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. Not since the years of La Sierra University promoting Darwinian evolution have I seen such blatant promotion of Darwinian evolution by an official Church organization. It just amazes me that I am compelled, yet again, to defend the official and historical position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church regarding a literal six-day Creation Week within relatively recent history, followed by a literal worldwide Noachian Flood that destroyed all land animal life on this planet, save that within Noah’s Ark – in the face of strong opposition from within.

.

.

The Arguments:

As usual, the arguments presented aren’t new, but have been around for decades.  The first has to do with the claim that believing in Darwinian evolution need not harm or reduce one’s faith in God.  The other arguments presented have to do with the physical evidence that is commonly cited as being best explained by Darwinian-style evolution.

Darwinism Doesn’t Harm Faith in God:

Valenzuela starts off with the following quote:

“Let us begin by acknowledging what science has done for us. Through the gift of discovery, God has enabled humanity to extend life, cure diseases, travel across continents and even into space, and feed billions. From the smallest microchip to the largest space telescope, science has lifted our quality of life. These advances aren’t accidents — they’re the fruits of minds that God has gifted.”

Sure, scientific discoveries have significantly improved our lives.  Scientific methodologies are very important when it comes to rationally investigating the world and universe in which we live. Science has helped us discover useful truths and knowledge regarding how to best function here.  However, what Valenzuela doesn’t seem to understand is that not all of the opinions of popular scientists are scientific. Not uncommonly, scientists will promote philosophical ideas, particularly with regard to claims that cannot be directly observed and tested in a potentially falsifiable manner in observable time, claims regarding what supposedly happened millions of years ago based on strained extrapolations, as being based on the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. In reality, what they’re actually doing is promoting philosophical and/or methodological naturalism – a type of religion that is not actually supported by the clear weight of real scientific evidence. Even if a scientist claims to believe in a God, even if he/she is a Christian, the promotion of Darwinian-style evolution over hundreds of millions of years is, fundamentally, a philosophical position that strikes directly at some of the key claims found in the Bible regarding the origin of life and its diversity on this planet.

The truth of the matter is that the claims of the Bible (regarding the deliberately designed nature of the diversity of life on this planet, a literal recent Creation Week less than 10k years ago, and a literal worldwide Noachian Flood) have the support of the weight of empirical scientific evidence, not Neo-Darwinism.

Pope John Paul II:

Valenzuela counters by quoting Pope John Paul II:

“Many devout Christians, including Pope John Paul II, have affirmed that the theory of evolution does not conflict with belief in God. In his message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996, he said: “New findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.” He reminded believers that acknowledging biological processes doesn’t negate God’s creative hand.”

The question that Valenzuela gets wrong here is not if Darwinian evolution excludes God, but what kind of picture of God does Darwinian-style evolution paint?  If Darwinian evolution is true, then the God of the Bible is a sadistic liar.  And, I’m not the only one who comes to this conclusion.

James Barr:

Take, for example, the comments of the well-known secular Oxford Hebrew scholar, James Barr:

“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience, (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story, and (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984.

Consider that Prof. Barr made this statement while personally considering the Genesis narrative to be false. He did not believe that God created life on this planet in just six literal days. He believed that life existed and evolved on this planet over hundreds of millions of years, just like most mainstream scientists do today. Yet, he still was quite clear that the author(s) of the Genesis narrative intended to say something about real historical events. They did not intend to be figurative in their language. Now, it is quite a different thing to say that the Biblical authors were simply mistaken compared to the argument that suggests that they were intending to write symbolically or figuratively.

William Provine:

Or, consider the more pointed and direct observations of William Provine, late professor of biological sciences at Cornell University. A few years back, he gave a very interesting speech for a 1998 Darwin Day keynote address. As part of this speech, he explained the moral and philosophical implications of Darwinian Evolution – if followed to its most rational conclusion:

“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.”

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

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

Academe January 1987, pp.51-52

God is Love?

And, as best as I can tell, Provine was right.  Sure, you can believe in a God and Neo-Darwinism at the same time, like Zeus or Odin or Thor, but your God won’t be the God of the Bible – the God of Love.  I mean, how can a God of Love create a world that is full of suffering and death, hundreds of millions of years before humans ever evolved on this planet, and call that world “good”, much less “very good” (Genesis 1:31)?  You’re talking about the suffering and death of untold billions of innocent creatures, before mankind sinned against God?  Is that truly reflective of the God of the Bible, who is described as suffering when even a small sparrow falls wounded to the ground? and caring about even the animals of Nineveh (Matthew 10:29; Jonah 4:11)? Not only that, but a God who created via a Darwinian mechanism while claiming that He did it in just six literal days would be lying to us, for what reason?  Really, it wouldn’t have been very hard to simply say that creation took vast eons of time – if that’s really what happened.

Really, what Darwinism does, and what Valenzuela is promoting here, is a situation where some of the strongest physical evidence in favor of God’s existence and in the credibility of the Bible as the very Word of God to humanity is significantly undermined. The basis of rational faith in God and His Word takes a huge hit when Darwinism is entertained.  I, for one, if I ever became convinced of the truth of Neo-Darwinian evolution, would leave behind not only the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but Christianity as well.  The logical inconsistencies would simply be too much for me. It is for this reason that I am very sympathetic to Darwinian evolutionists who are also atheists or at least agnostic in their thinking, since this is the most rational conclusion given the truth of Darwinism.

Still, truth is truth. Personally, I’d rather know the reality of a painful truth than live with a pleasant lie.  So, what is this “overwhelming evidence” that seems so convincing to Valenzuela?

The Evidence:

Observed in Real Time:

Valenzuela puts Neo-Darwinian Evolution on the very same footing as physical sciences that can be observed and studied in real time. He argues:

“Theories like gravity, germ theory, atomic theory, and evolution are foundational, not speculative.”

Antibiotic Resistance:

And, to a certain degree, Valenzuela is right.  Evolutionary changes, based on random mutation and natural selection, the Darwinian mechanism, can be observed and studied in real time.  Take antibiotic resistance, for example (Link).  Antibiotic resistance is based on random genetic mutations that can be preferentially selected based on function, on the “survival of the fittest”, very rapidly, in an antibiotic-rich environment. Antibiotic resistance is not only real, it can and does often evolve very rapidly within a population of bacteria. The specific mutations that cause the evolution of antibiotic resistance can be determined as well.  It’s all a matter of uncontrovertible fact.  It’s observable Darwinian-style evolution in action – no question.

Humpty Dumpty:

So, there you go, evolution is a fact since it can be observed in action in real time.  The problem here is that this type of evolution is based on the loss of a pre-existing interaction between antibodies and antigens.  Change the antigen just slightly in a multitude of different ways, and the antibody will not attach to it as well, and a degree of antibiotic resistance is suddenly gained.  It’s like breaking Humpty Dumpty.  It’s so easy to do because there are so many ways to do it.

Never Observed:

Evolution of The Bacterial Flagellar Motor:

Now, consider what it would take to evolve something that is not based on the loss or disruption of a pre-existing interaction, something that requires a minimum number of different parts working together in a specific arrangement at the same time – like a bacterial flagellar motility system that requires around 40 different types of protein parts all working in a specific 3D arrangement at the same time. The problem with this type of evolution is that there simply are not enough viable, potentially beneficial “stepping stones” at this level of functional complexity. The amount of time required to evolve any one of the multitude of required steps along any proposed evolutionary pathway requires far far too much time – trillions upon trillions of years!  (Link)

And, that’s the basic problem with the Darwinian mechanism in a nutshell. It just doesn’t work beyond the very lowest levels of function complexity in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time.  All of the examples of evolution in action that are given are all low-level examples. There are no observable examples of evolution in action that require more than a couple of hundred specifically arranged amino acid residues.  It’s just that the minimum gap distance in sequence space between stepping stones rapidly gets too wide for evolutionary mechanisms to cross – this side of a practical eternity of time.  It just doesn’t happen and, statistically, cannot have happened.

Kenneth Miller’s Arguments:

Yet, Valenzuela quotes well-known Christian evolutionists, such as Kenneth Miller, who argue that such things can easily happen.

“Likewise, Kenneth Miller, a professor of physics at Brown University, states that “rigid creationists look for God in what science cannot explain, while scientists who are religious look for God in what science does understand and explain.”

Yes, Kenneth Miller is a Catholic Christian and an evolutionist. He has proposed, decades ago, ways to get complex multipart systems to evolve via random mutation and function-based selection. As one of the stepping stones toward flagellar evolution, for example, he proposed an intermediate stepping stone known as the Type III Secretory System (TTSS) – a bacterial toxin injector comprise of around 10 of the 40 required proteins in the flagellar system (Link). Of course, like flightless birds on windy islands or cavefish without eyes, those systems that require fewer parts to work came into existence after the more complex systems.  That’s right, the TTSS system devolved from the fully formed bacterial flagellar motility system, not the other way around – just like cavefish without eyes devolved from fish with eyes and flightless birds devolved from birds that could fly.  You see, again, it is far far easier to devolve downhill than it is to evolve uphill because there are so many many more ways to break Humpty Dumpty compared with the very few ways to put him back together again, starting with all of the broken pieces – even if a few of the broken pieces may have some kind of useful lower-level function.

Here’s a video of a talk I gave in 2013 on this topic – starting at 27:00:

.

See also my detailed 2007 review of Kenneth Miller’s arguments: Link

Going Downhill:

Another major problem for Neo-Darwinism is that all complex multicellular organisms, such as humans, apes, dogs, cats, and all mammals, birds, and reptiles, are degenerating over time.  The detrimental genetic mutation rate is simply far too high for any reasonable reproductive rate to overcome.  The detrimental mutation rate is so high, in fact, that humans would have gone extinct within less than a million years if we had actually been around that long… as would chimps/apes, etc. This problem, by itself, strikes a fatal blow at the heart of Neo-Darwinism, but falls right in line with the Biblical account of the Fall and a subsequent rapid degeneration of an originally perfect creation of life on this planet within recent history. This has been detailed in John Sandford’s book “Genetic Entropy”.  See also: Link

The Fossil Record:

But what about the fossil record?  Are the “missing links” being discovered all the time?  Valenzuela argues:

“Let’s consider one example: the fossil record. Creationists often claim that evolution is false because there are “gaps” in the fossil timeline. But those gaps are steadily being filled. The fossil Tiktaalik, discovered in 2004, is a stunning example—a creature that bridges the gap between fish and land animals, exactly as evolutionary predictions suggested. That is not chance—it is evidence.”

Tiktaalik is a unique lobe-finned fish designed with gills, fin rays, and fishy body scales.  And, there are other similar lobe-finned fish living today (like the Coelacanth, a “living fossil” that was also once claimed to be a “missing link” between fish and early land-dwelling tetrapods, but never ventures out on land).  There are also fish alive today that can walk with their fins underwater (like the red-lipped batfish in the video clip below) or on land – surviving outside of water for fairly long periods of time (like the mud skipper). Lungfish are also noted to use their hind fins to push their bodies up from the substrate and propel themselves forward. So, Tiktaalik is not unique in this regard. It’s not even unique with regard to its alligator-like head, which resembles a modern alligator gar (see below).  Also, subsequently discovered details are a bit problematic for Tiktaalik being such a clear “missing link” as Valenzuela claims.  In 2014, evolutionary science writer Colin Schultz stated that Tiktaalik had “mobile rear fins,” not legs (Link). In addition, “a diagram of the fossilized pelvis —while elaborate and enlarged—clearly shows that it’s not attached to the spinal column as one would expect with a true tetrapod” (Link). See also: Link

In short, it really doesn’t matter.  What if there really were a fish-like creature that had lungs and actual feet with a pelvis to support real legs.  What would that really prove?  Without a viable evolutionary mechanism, one is left with the only rational conclusion that any such creature would have had to have been deliberately designed and created by an intelligent designer.   If this designer created such creatures over millions of years of time to suffer and die, then that designer would be evil.  If, however, the Designer created such creatures in an initially perfect world without suffering or death for sentient creatures, then that Designer would match the God described by the Bible.

Evidence for Young Age:

Beyond this, the weight of the evidence from the Fossil Record and Geologic Column strongly supports the Biblical story of a worldwide Noachian-style Flood within relatively recent history.  Take, as one of a great many examples, that most large dinosaur bones contain soft tissues with sequenceable proteins and even fragments of DNA, as well as measurable amounts of radiocarbon.  None of these should exist if these bones are more than a few tens of thousands of years old (Link, Link).  Consider also that dinosaur eggs, worldwide, show features that are most consistent with a worldwide watery catastrophe (Link).

The Geologic Column, some of which can be very clearly seen in places like the Grand Canyon, shows very clear generalized features of rapid catastrophic formation, worldwide, to include a striking lack of expected surface erosion between layers (Link, Link), with a lack of expected bioturbation (Link), as well as a lack of erosion along the edges of continents worldwide (Link, Link) and the catastrophic formation of the Grand Canyon itself after the Flood (Link). There are also continent-wide “paleocurrents” created by flowing water that are found in the layers within the geologic column – all pointing in the same direction (Link). Even the sand that forms some of the most prominent sandstone layers of the Grand Canyon was transported, by water, across the entire continent of North America (Link). The uphill vertebrate trackways within the layers of the Grand Canyon also support the Noachian account (Link), as does the lack of expected ocean sediment worldwide (Link). And, the list goes on and on.

For more information on the science of Creation, see my website at DetectingDesign.com.

Intelligent Design Not Valid Science?

“The danger with Intelligent Design is not its affirmation of a Creator—it is that it masks theology as science. It doesn’t follow the scientific method. It doesn’t make testable predictions. As such, it is not science—and trying to present it as such in schools only weakens our witness and our credibility. Science can study the design. Faith tells us who the Designer is.”

Valensuela’s argument here defines “faith” as a type of blind irrational belief that has no basis in empirical evidence or understanding.  Why have belief, much less faith, in God if it is rationally impossible to clearly recognize His Signature anywhere within His own Creation?  Even King David noted that the Signature of God is clearly recognizable in the works of His Hands:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” – Psalms 19:1

“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” – Psalms 139:14

Paul also argued that God’s nature is made visible to us by the things that He has made:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. – Romans 1:20

Clearly then, Biblical “faith” isn’t blind.  It is based on a foundation of the clear weight of empirical evidence that appeals to the candid mind.  God does not expect anyone to believe in Him without first providing a rational basis to believe and accept His claims. A prime example of this is the fact that the faith of the disciples of Jesus was not firmly established until after the empirical evidence of His Resurrection. They didn’t just believe based on blind faith, but upon the weight of strong empirical evidence that God gave the Church, down to the present day, for the Resurrection of Jesus. Paul explained the significance of the evidence of the Resurrection with regard to a rational Christian faith:

“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” – 1 Corinthians 15:14

And, as Ellen White also explained:

“God gives sufficient evidence for the candid mind to believe; but he who turns from the weight of evidence because there are a few things which he cannot make plain to his finite understanding will be left in the cold, chilling atmosphere of unbelief and questioning doubts, and will make shipwreck of faith” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, pp. 232, 233).

The fact of the matter is, as demonstrated above, the detection of intelligent design behind a given phenomenon can be done in a scientific manner that is testable in a potentially falsifiable way, unlike the claims of Neo-Darwinism, which cannot be conclusively tested in such a definitively falsifiable manner.  After all, how is it even possible to test that a “missing link” in the fossil record really is a missing link in a definitively falsifiable manner? or that a given complex feature of a living thing was the actual product of a mindless naturalistic mechanism? These “theories” are simply based on extrapolations that are not themselves subject to definitive testing in a falsifiable manner.

Consider that there are different types of explanations in science… all of which are “natural” in their own sphere – but are clearly within different “spheres” or “levels” of what might be considered “natural”. For example, consider a highly symmetrical polished granite cube that measures 25 cm along each edge – with perfectly symmetrical geometric etchings (like triangles, squares, hexagons, etc.) carved into the middle of each face of the cube. What would be the best scientific explanation for the origin of such a granite cube?  Let’s say that one of our robotic rovers on Mars happened to come across such a granite cube sitting right there on the surface of Mars. Would not the vast majority of scientists recognize such a granite cube as a true artifact of deliberate design?  Of course, they would, and so would everyone else with a candid mind.  It would hit the front page of every newspaper in the world with the heading, “We are NOT Alone!” – and for very good reason.

Clearly, the best and most reasonable explanation or hypothesis for such a phenomenon would require the involvement of at least human-level intelligent design. How so? Because, there are no known mindless natural mechanisms that could come close to doing the job, while, at the same time, it is known that at least human-level intelligence is capable of easily producing such things.  Given these two pieces of knowledge, the hypothesis of intelligent design becomes the best scientific explanation among the competing options – the explanation with the best “predictive power”. The same is true for stacked rocks or William Paley’s famous watch analogy in his 1802 book Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity.

After all, this argument forms the very basis of various modern scientific disciplines such as forensic science, anthropology, and even SETI science.  All of these modern sciences are entirely based on the human ability to rationally detect the workings of intelligent design behind various phenomena that are, or that might be seen in nature. In fact, mainstream scientists, in general, have no problem with the detection of intelligent design as long as the proposed designer isn’t God.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the designer of the granite cube or the SETI radio signal was God or any other supernatural being.  It’s much more likely that if such phenomena were ever discovered, that some form of “natural alien intelligence”, similar to humans perhaps, produced these “artifacts” of intelligent design – right?  This is a very reasonable argument, to be sure.  However, consider that not everyone who is intelligent is at the same level of intelligence.   Some phenomena, while requiring intelligence to explain (like our granite cube), do not require very high levels of intelligence to explain.  Could God or a God-like being have been responsible?  Sure!  However, the hypothesis of God-like intelligence and creative power is not required to explain the origin of such a granite cube.  Much lower levels of intelligence would work just fine.

However, let’s say that our Mars rover came across something that looked very much like a mechanically-intricate spaceship. Let’s even say that, after investigation, it was discovered that technology previously unknown to us, and perhaps still very mysterious, was used by the creators of this spaceship to enable the spaceship, and anything inside of it, to go back in time.  Clearly, not only would such a spaceship be very excellent evidence that its creators were highly intelligent, it would strongly suggest that they were a great deal more intelligent, or at least had access to a much higher level of knowledge, than humans currently have.  So, one might reasonably argue that even if we might not yet be able to understand how such technology works, we can or could detect that whoever produced such a spaceship had greater intelligence and/or technological advancement compared to us.  Of course, this doesn’t mean that these very advanced intelligent beings were “supernatural” or at all God-like! – right?  Of course not.  Would a God or God-like being be required to explain the origin of such a spaceship?  Not necessarily.

However, what would it take before one could be rationally suspicious that a particular phenomenon could only be explained by a level of intelligence and creative power that, from our finite perspective at least, would be indistinguishable from what we would expect from a God or a God-like being?

This is what many modern physicists are asking.   That’s right, many, and probably most, modern physicists believe that God, or at least a God-like being, is responsible for the origin of the fine-tuned features of the universe in which we live.  In order for the universe to be inhabited by intelligent beings of any kind, it has to achieve an extremely high level of precise fine-tuning for large numbers of variables known as “fundamental constants”.  Obviously, intelligent design was required to achieve a level of fine-tuning far beyond what any spaceship would require to function.  What type of intelligence and creative power could produce such a thing?  Call it “natural” if you want, but I certainly couldn’t tell the difference if this “natural” intelligence told me, “By the way, I’m also God.”   What would I say to that?  I simply couldn’t tell the difference and would have no basis to argue otherwise.  And, who knows, perhaps God is just as “natural” as you and me? – just on a different level of what might be defined as “natural”.  After all, I’m sure that God, given that he exists, considers his own level of intelligence and creative power perfectly “natural” from his own perspective.

Such conclusions aren’t just “value judgments” beyond noting that there are, in fact, different levels of intelligence and that some phenomena in nature require extraordinarily high levels of intelligence and creative power to explain.

So, Valenzuela is simply mistaken here.  The hypothesis of intelligent design can be forwarded in a scientific manner to explain various phenomena found in the world around us. There are numerous scientific disciplines that do this very thing.  Excluding the origin and/or the diversity of living things, a priori, is not rational unless a viable mindless naturalistic mechanism is actually discovered. As shown above, the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection simply isn’t up to the job beyond the very lowest levels of functional complexity that we see within living things.  That means, then, just like determining that the intricate machinery of a wristwatch or a spaceship required intelligent input, the same is rationally and scientifically true when it comes to correctly interpreting the origin of the intricate and diverse machinery of living things.

The “Bommon Line”:

In this light, consider the following exchange that took place during an interview with the well-known theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss:

• Brierley:

Do you see any evidence of purpose in the universe?

• Krauss:

Well maybe I would believe if the stars lined up to spell out a message from God

• Brierley:

Actually no, that wouldn’t be evidence for God on your multiverse view. If there an infinite number of universes existing for an infinite amount of time, then anything can happen no matter how unlikely it is therefore, no evidence could convince you that God exists, since the unobservable, untestable, eternal multiverse can make anything it wants.

• Krauss:

That’s a true statement… You talk about this god of love and everything else. But somehow if you don’t believe in him, you don’t get any of the benefits, so you have to believe. And then if you do anything wrong, you’re going to be judged for it. I don’t want to be judged by god; that’s the bottom line  (podcast: 58:01).

Justin Brierley, ‘Unbelievable: A Universe From Nothing? Lawrence Krauss vs. Rodney Holder’

(Lawrence Krauss in 2012 debate with Rodney Holder – Course director at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge.) (Link, Link)

So, there it is in a nutshell.  The “bottom line” really isn’t a scientific argument at all, but a philosophical position where anything that avoids letting God in the door, that appears to avoid moral responsibility and judgment, is accepted regardless of how nonsensical it may be.

Testimony of Ellen White:

Valenzuela may not be aware of these things.  After all, he is not a scientist (he has a bachelor’s degree in theology from Southern Adventist University and a master’s in Church History from Loma Linda University) and the information that he cites is decades old.  However, as a leader in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with a master’s in Church History from LLU, he should be very well aware of what the SDA Church and Ellen White have to say about this topic. He therefore has no valid excuse for what he published in a prominent SDA journal.

Consider also that, at least for Seventh-day Adventists and the leadership of the Church, it should matter what Ellen White has to say about Darwinian Evolution and the notion that life has existed and evolved on this planet over the course of hundreds of millions of years. After all, who was more inspired by God with privileged information regarding the origins of our world? – Ellen White or Pope John Paul II?

Although a fan of true scientific research and investigation, Ellen White wrote extensively about the literal nature of the Creation Week (Patriarchs and Prophets, Chapter 9) and the literal worldwide nature of Noah’s Flood (Chapter 7) and how it destroyed all land animal life save for what was on the Ark – and extensively reworked the surface of the Earth (Link).

“God is the author of science,” and therefore, “rightly understood, science and the written word agree, and each sheds light on the other.” (CT 426)

“Science, so-called, and religion will be placed in opposition to each other, because finite men do not comprehend the power and the greatness of God.” (Ev 593)

“The Bible recognizes no long ages in which the earth was slowly evolved from chaos. Of each successive day of creation, the sacred record declares that it consisted of the evening and the morning, like all other days that have followed. At the close of each day is given the result of the Creator’s work.” (PP, 111-112)

“I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. . . . On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days.” (SG, vol. 3, pp. 90-92)

“Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years. Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature.” (Ed 128-129)

“God created man in His own image. Here is no mystery. There is no ground for the supposition that man was evolved by slow degrees of development from the lower forms of animal or vegetable life. Such teaching lowers the great work of the Creator to the level of man’s narrow, earthly conceptions. Men are so intent upon excluding God from the sovereignty of the universe that they degrade man and defraud him of the dignity of his origin.” (PP, p. 45)

“I have been shown that without Bible history, geology can prove nothing” (3SG 93). Ellen G. White acknowledged that “the bones of human beings and of animals found in the earth, are much larger than those of men and animals now living” and added that “the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history.” (3SG 93)

Breaking a Sacred Trust:

Regardless of one’s opinion regarding the truth of Neo-Darwinism or Creationism, God-included or not, the fact of the matter is that Alberto Valenzuela is clearly out of line with the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on this topic.  Therefore, I do not understand why he was entrusted with a leadership position as a paid representative of the SDA Church unless no one actually knew that he held such views ahead of time. Certainly, someone who promotes views that are fundamentally opposed to the basic pillars of the SDA Church should not be the Editor of one of the main Journals of the Church. The Pacific Union Recorder is distributed to ~76,000 homes of church members (Link), which is not insignificant. Church leadership needs to act quickly to resolve this problem, to include retracting the article and publishing a rebuttal.  After all, Valenzuela’s article strikes directly at what the Church stands for as a fundamental part of the Gospel Message of Hope that we, as a church organization, are striving to share with the world.

Related Articles by Michael Peabody:

• A Critique of the Pacific Union Recorder’s Defense of Theistic Evolution
• After the Recorder: Evolution, Creation, and the Fragile Architecture of Rights

Michael Peabody is an attorney in Los Angeles and the President of Founders’ First Freedom, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving liberty of conscience.

.

.

McCullough and Wakefield Team Up:

On October 27, 2025, Peter McCullough joined forces with Andrew Wakefield to self-publish a lengthy report (Link) reviving the claim that childhood vaccines are a primary risk factor for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For those who know their history, this shouldn’t be surprising.  McCullough, a cardiologist, gained notoriety opposing the mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic (Link, Link) and then later for his opposition to the childhood vaccine schedule, and Wakefield became infamous for publishing a now-retracted paper in The Lancet linking the MMR vaccine with childhood autism in 1998 (Link). Wakefield’s Lancet article was retracted in 2010 for fraud, undisclosed financial interests, ethical violations, and scientific misrepresentations (Link). Following the initial worldwide scare created by Wakefield, numerous rigorous scientific studies were conducted around the world to see if a link between childhood vaccines and autism could be detected. No such link was ever established, despite very large-scale studies involving millions of children followed over many years.

Yet, here we are again back at square one.  It seems only natural, if not inevitable, that McCullough and Wakefield would join forces to revive the link between vaccines and autism. In their report, their central claim is that vaccines, particularly those containing aluminum adjuvants or ethyl mercury, cause or contribute to autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It asserts that over 100 studies support this idea and that only a handful find no link.

Too many vaccines:

The McCullough report claims that when a child gets too many vaccines, it can overwhelm their immune system. The report claims that this stress on the body, particularly on subcellular organelles called mitochondria, produces “mitochondrial stress”, which in turn increases the risk for autism. However, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence doesn’t back up this notion. There’s no evidence that the large number of antigens (from bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc) that an infant or child’s body is exposed to every day or the small number of antigens in vaccines hurt the immune system in any way, since the human immune system is designed to handle enormous numbers of antigens on a daily basis.

In fact, the number of antigens in vaccines has gone down over the years, even while autism rates have gone up. In the 1980s, for example, the exposure to vaccine antigens was much higher, at ~3000 (mainly because the old whole-cell pertussis vaccine alone contained ~3,000 antigens), than it is today.

Vaccine Doses Related to ASD?

So, while McCullough is correct in saying that there were fewer vaccine “shots” or “doses” a few decades ago (see illustration), this is really irrelevant to the actual degree of antigen exposure or to the claimed increase in ASD with the increase in vaccinations since the 1970s and 80s. After all, the entire vaccine schedule today, from birth to 18 years of age, exposes children to fewer than 165 antigens total (because modern vaccines tend to use purified proteins, toxoids, polysaccharides, and recombinant technologies, which require far fewer antigens to generate strong immunity). This is far less than a baby gets from crawling on the carpet. The typical child gets exposed to between 2,000 and 6,000 antigens per day (Link). A minor respiratory infection may expose a child to 4,000–10,000 antigens in a single event. Most children following the recommended schedule will receive about 30 shots protecting against about 20 diseases by the time they turn 18. This is all by design. A baby’s immune system is designed to handle even billions of antigens simultaneously.  Even if all vaccines were given at once, the immune system would use <0.1% of its theoretical capacity

This clearly supports the conclusion that antigen overload isn’t the problem. And even though “mitochondrial stress” is a popular phrase right now, experts from Science Feedback explain that there’s no proof that vaccines trigger autism, even in people with mitochondrial disorders. They explain that infections, not vaccines, are the real danger for these children. Vaccines actually protect them by preventing fevers and other problems that could lead to brain injury.

“Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines,” says Dr. Offit. “A baby’s body is bombarded with immunologic challenges—from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean.” (Link)

“Given that infants are colonized with trillions of bacteria, that each bacterium contains between 2,000 and 6,000
immunological components, and that infants are infected with numerous viruses, the challenge from the 150 immunological components in vaccines is minuscule compared to what infants manage every day. Indeed, a scraped knee is probably a greater immunological challenge than all childhood vaccines combined.” – Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 2018

Summary Chart: Natural exposure far exceeds vaccine exposure

Low Autism Rates among the Amish:

The argument is also made that communities that have lower vaccination rates, like the Amish, also have lower rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder. It’s not like the Amish don’t vaccinate their children at all.  A 2011 study in Pediatrics, for example, found that only 14% of Amish people surveyed didn’t vaccinate their kids at all. (Link)  Still, several studies have suggested lower overall rates of ASD within Amish communities.

There are several possible reasons for this observation. For example, the Amish have a greater tendency to avoid mainstream medical care and therefore do not take as much advantage of diagnostic criteria or care for ASD. This probably affects the detection rate. After all, there have been studies in certain Amish communities that showed rather high rates of ASD. A 2011 study on autism in Amish children in Ohio, published in the Journal of Child Neurology, found a high rate of autism due to a high degree of genetic consanguinity within the community. The study identified a rate of approximately 27 cases per 1000 children (1 in 37).

Joycelyn M. Lee, et. al., Autism Spectrum Disorders in Amish and Non-Amish Children. Journal of Child Neurology. 2011;26(6):696–701. (see also: Link)

So far, however, it seems as though in certain Amish communities, the rate of ASD may actually be less compared to the national average (1 in 271 vs. 1 in 31). Note, however, that this range is comparable to other non-Amish US communities. For example, the prevalence of autism among 8-year-olds in 2022 was 1 in 31 overall, but ranged from 1 in 103 in a community in Texas to 1 in 19 in California. Several studies have shown significantly lower rates of ASD among Hispanics in Texas compared to non-Hispanic caucasians (Link). In fact, in the U.S., recorded rates can vary 5-fold (or more) between different states or communities. Such variability likely reflects differences in regional genetic characteristics, dietary norms, environmental hazards, access to care, screening, and awareness. In any case, none of these rate variabilities have been associated with vaccination rates, which is the key point. (Link, Link, Link).

Pre-existing Conflicts of Interest:

In addition, note that all of the authors of this report have pre-existing conflicts of interest and a well-known pre-established bias against vaccines:  Here are their backgrounds:

• Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH: The foundation’s leader, a cardiologist who became prominent during COVID-19 for spreading vaccine misinformation. He’s had his board certifications revoked by the American Board of Internal Medicine for promoting COVID-19 vaccine misinformation;
• John S. Leake, MA: Vice President of the McCullough Foundation with no medical qualifications. In fact, he is a non-fiction author and writes true crime novels;
• Andrew Wakefield, MBBS: Yes, he’s back. The author of the fraudulent 1998 Lancet study that started the entire vaccine-autism myth. His medical license was revoked for research fraud;
• Nicolas Hulscher, MPH: The report’s primary epidemiologist, who joined the McCullough Foundation immediately after completing his MPH in 2024;
• Seven other foundation members and associates with previous publications examining vaccines as a “risk factor” for various diseases and adverse outcomes.
• The report also received funding from the Bia-Echo Foundation, founded by Nicole Shanahan, who served as RFK Jr.’s running mate in 2024 and shares his skepticism about vaccine safety. The foundation’s mission to turn ‘advocacy into actionable research’ is also noteworthy.
• This report was uploaded to Zenodo, which is an open repository where anyone can post documents without scientific scrutiny. It did not undergo rigorous peer review and is not a scientific journal with credibility. When you can’t get published in a legitimate journal or don’t want to field critiques from external scientists reviewing your work, you self-publish, self-promote, and call it “landmark research.”
• Despite these clear biases, the authors do not declare any conflicts of interest.

Response from the Medical Community:

Dr. Zachary Rubin:

“That figure alone [that over 100 studies support their conclusion] should raise eyebrows. The overwhelming body of peer-reviewed evidence from around the world—including meta-analyses covering millions of children—shows no causal relationship between any vaccine or vaccine ingredient and autism. The authors of this new report don’t reconcile that contradiction; instead, they dismiss every null finding as “biased” or “methodologically flawed” and elevate small, often non–peer-reviewed papers or case reports as proof of causation. This is cherry-picking, not science. What makes the report especially misleading is how it blends legitimate science with distorted interpretation. It correctly notes that autism is multifactorial, shaped by genetics, perinatal conditions, and environmental factors, but then uses that complexity to sneak in a presupposed conclusion: that vaccines are one of those environmental triggers. Correlation is presented as causation. Graphs showing the number of vaccine doses over time are plotted beside autism prevalence curves, suggesting a relationship without any statistical evidence of causality (Figure 2). This is a textbook example of a spurious correlation, the same flawed logic that could “prove” that organic food sales or smartphone ownership cause autism simply because they rose in parallel over the same decades.

The authors claim to have “comprehensively examined” the literature but fail to describe any reproducible method for how studies were identified, screened, or evaluated for quality. There’s no mention of pre-registration, bias assessment, or peer review. The inclusion of “gray literature,” conference abstracts, and preprints, sources that bypass scientific scrutiny, further undermines credibility. Meanwhile, high-quality epidemiologic studies from Denmark, Sweden, Japan, and the United States are brushed aside because they don’t fit the narrative. The result is a document that reads more like a legal brief for the anti-vaccine movement than a scientific analysis.

Zachary Rubin, The McCullough Foundation’s Autism Report Isn’t Science — It’s Propaganda, Do Not Be Fooled, October 28, 2025 (Dr. Zachary Rubin is a double board-certified pediatrician specializing in allergy and immunology)

Review of the 300 References:

We manually reviewed every single one of the 308 references — checking the authors and the journals where they were published. When we highlighted all the problematic sources (those written by known anti-vaccine advocates, retracted papers, and preprints, blogs, and other non-peer-reviewed sources masquerading as journals), the pattern was striking: starting at citation 193 onward, the list is essentially a sea of red flags.

Here’s what we discovered:

The Same Names, Over and Over

When we catalogued the authors cited, we noticed that the same small group of anti-vaccine advocates appeared repeatedly.

• • Papers by Mark and David Geier (Mark’s medical license was revoked in multiple states for unethical autism “treatments”)
  • Studies by Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic (several retracted for manipulation)
  • Brian Hooker and Andrew Wakefield’s analyses (repeatedly debunked and/or retracted)
  • The McCullough Foundation authors citing their own previous work

This circular citation creates an illusion of widespread scientific support. They cite their own papers to validate their claims, then use those claims as evidence in new papers. It’s academic three-card Monte — the same bad data shuffled around to look like multiple independent sources, Instead of fairly examining all relevant research and before deriving conclusions, the authors only focused on studies that agreed with their narrative. This is an extreme case of selection bias, where any study that doesn’t fit their narrative is written off as having “serious methodological flaws”.

The Journal Problem:

We also examined where these 308 references were published. Many appeared in:

• • Predatory journals without a peer review process
  • Pay-to-publish outlets where anyone can be published if they hand over enough $$$
  • Journals with editorial boards stacked with anti-vaccine activists
  • Non-indexed journals with no scientific credibility

They even included papers from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (a publication known for promoting HIV denialism and other medical misinformation) and the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research–both of which are not indexed in PubMed because they do not meet basic scientific standards. In the conclusion, the report claims that of 136 vaccine studies they reviewed, 107 (79%) show a link to autism. Achieving this shocking percentage required some creative accounting:

What They Counted as “Evidence”:

• • Retracted papers, including Wakefield’s original fraud
  • Animal studies using doses hundreds of times higher than human vaccines
  • Test tube experiments that can’t be directly extrapolated as human evidence
  • Online parent surveys with self-selected participants and unverifiable data
  • Misuse of passive surveillance data (e.g., VAERS) — VAERS and similar systems collect raw reports of events after vaccination, but cannot establish causation; treating VAERS counts as evidence of causality is a well-known error
  • Ecological and correlation errors — e.g., correlating aggregate vaccination rates with aggregate autism rates without accounting for detection/diagnostic changes and confounders (this can produce spurious associations)
  • The same data published multiple times by the same authors in different journals
  • Law reviews

For example, a “study” from TheControlGroup.org (citation 291 in the report) is based on mail-in reports, phone calls, and interviews with self-selected participants. The author, Joy Garner, openly admits she’s “neither a PhD, nor a statistician” but rather “a tech inventor (hardware/video games) and patent-holder with an above-average IQ.” That is certainly not high-quality evidence (or evidence, at all).

How They Dismissed Contradictory Evidence:

They do cite major studies — including the recent Danish aluminum study that followed 1.2 million children. But these major studies are dismissed, and here’s how:

• • The same old “no true unvaccinated” argument: They claim these studies are invalid because they don’t have “genuinely unvaccinated control groups.” With clear evidence that vaccines save lives, withholding vaccines from children merely to create an “uncontaminated control group” would violate clinical equipoise and is extremely unethical. Still, there are good vaccines studies comparing the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated.
    • A study published in the February 2014 issue of the journal Autism found “the rates of autism spectrum disorder diagnosis did not differ between immunized and non-immunized younger sib groups.” (Link)
    • A retrospective cohort study that assessed MMR vaccination status and psychiatric diagnoses among 537,303 children born in Denmark between 1991 and 1998. The study provides evidence against a causal relation between MMR vaccination and autism. Their data demonstrated a similar risk of autism in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, a lack of temporal clustering of autism cases after immunization, and that neither autistic disorder nor ASD were linked to MMR vaccination. (Link)
    • A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism (2002, by Kreesten Madsen et al.). This study compared ~ 537,303 Danish children; ~ 82% had received the MMR vaccine, ~ 18% were unvaccinated. There was no increased risk of autism or ASD in the vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations (Relative Risk [RR] = 0.92 for autistic disorder; RR = 0.83 for other ASDs) after adjustment.
    • Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study (2019, by Anders Hviid et al.). This study included 657,461 children born from 1999–2010 in Denmark, among whom some had not received MMR. Reported an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85–1.02) comparing MMR-vaccinated vs MMR-unvaccinated, i.e. no statistically significant increase in autism after vaccination.
    • See also: Link
  • Statistical nitpicking: They claim that studies that did not find an association with autism used “overadjusted statistical models,” “registry misclassification,” and “ecological confounding”. By claiming that models were “overadjusted”, the authors are insinuating that they have better subject-matter knowledge regarding a causal relationship than other researchers who have examined this relationship before them. In this vague claim, they fail to make explicit the variables they think are overadjustments and do not provide any additional “expert evidence” to back their claims. Though some degree of misclassification is inevitable in any registry-based study, errors large enough to completely erase an association are extremely rare. Ultimately, these are manufactured and technical reasons to dismiss studies that don’t support their conclusions.
  • The double standard of verification: They complain that “only a few case-control studies verified vaccination through medical records,” while simultaneously including unverified parent surveys and blog posts to support their conclusions.

As a clear example of their dismissal of reputable evidence, let’s take the Danish aluminum study from earlier this year. This study of 1.2 million children found no link between aluminum in vaccines and 50 different conditions, including autism. Rather than acknowledge this as massive contradictory evidence, they simply dismiss it as having methodological flaws. (Link)

They also attempt to discredit vaccine research from Denmark by highlighting Poul Thorsen, a researcher who was arrested for embezzling CDC grant money. Financial fraud is serious, but it doesn’t invalidate the dozens of other studies conducted using Denmark’s comprehensive health registry system. In fact, this is guilt by association: they are dismissing an entire nation’s research infrastructure because of one person’s financial crimes over a decade ago. The hypocrisy here is staggering: they criticize Thorsen’s financial misconduct while including Andrew Wakefield as a co-author–the same Wakefield who was paid by lawyers suing vaccine manufacturers, who manipulated data, and who planned to profit from the MMR vaccine scare he created.

Jess Steier, Anti-Vaccine Mad Libs: The McCullough Foundation’s “Landmark” Report (Same recycled claims, shiny new packaging), Medium, November 4, 2025 

Loss of the CDC:

Of course, now that the CDC has been gutted by RFK Jr. (also notoriously opposed to childhood vaccines and well-known for promoting their supposed link with ASD), the new CDC just updated its website in line with the McCullough/Wakefield report, to include a statement linking childhood vaccines with autism. The CDC’s website now says a link between vaccines and autism cannot be ruled out (Link). That’s a reversal from the CDC’s longstanding stance that there is no link.

Response from the Medical Community:

Susan Kressly:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website has been changed to promote false information suggesting vaccines cause autism,” said Dr. Susan J. Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in a statement. “Since 1998, independent researchers across seven countries have conducted more than 40 high-quality studies involving over 5.6 million people. The conclusion is clear and unambiguous: There’s no link between vaccines and autism. Anyone repeating this harmful myth is misinformed or intentionally trying to mislead parents. We call on the CDC to stop wasting government resources to amplify false claims that sow doubt in one of the best tools we have to keep children healthy and thriving: routine immunizations.” (Link)

Autism Science Foundation:

“The new statement shows a lack of understanding of the term ‘evidence,” the Autism Science Foundation said in a statement the organization provided to NPR, adding, “No environmental factor has been better studied as a potential cause of autism than vaccines.” (Link)

Allison Singer:

“The facts don’t change because the administration does”, said Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation. At this point, it’s not about doing more studies; it’s about being willing to accept what the existing study data clearly show. You can’t just ignore data because it doesn’t confirm your beliefs, but that’s what the administration is doing.”

“The CDC has always been a trustworthy source of scientifically-backed information but it appears this is no longer the case”, added Singer. “Spreading this misinformation will needlessly cause fear in parents of young children who may not be aware of the mountains of data exonerating vaccines as a cause of autism and who may withhold vaccines in response to this misinformation, putting their children at risk to contract and potentially die from vaccine-preventable diseases.” (Link)

Sean O’Leary:

Sean T. O’Leary, M.D., M.P.H., FAAP, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, called the latest move to put misinformation on the trusted CDC website “madness” and “a tragic moment for this country” and said he does not blame the career CDC scientists.

“For many decades, we (could) rely on CDC to provide the American public with the best available science,” Dr. O’Leary said. “Now our government is using it as an apparatus to spread falsehoods and lies.” (Link)

:Independent researchers across seven countries have conducted more than 40 studies involving over 5.6 million people to conclude that there is no link between vaccines and autism.” (Link)

Paul Offit:

“It’s a statement that’s confusing by design”, said Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “These are the usual anti-vaccine tropes, misrepresentation of studies, false equivalence,” he says. “They might as well say chicken nuggets might cause autism because you can’t prove that either.” (Link)

The CDC acknowledges in a footnote on its main webpage on autism and vaccines that it still carries a header reading “Vaccines do not cause autism*” and says it hasn’t “been removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website.” (Link)

Video Clips:

Dr. Noc:

Dr. Rossome:

Dr. Mona:

See also Dr. Mona’s original post on Instagram: Link

____________

Dr. Sean Pitman is a pathologist, with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology, currently working in N. California.

Roger presented the 8 pillars of health (NEW START), according to the Adventist Health Message, but without being overtly religious about it, explaining these laws of health from a more scientific perspective in an easy-to-understand way that would appeal to a general audience.

N-utrition E-xercise W-ater    S-unlight T-emperance A-ir R-est T-rust

Yet, Roger did not hide the importance of faith or the God of health.  At the very end, Steven gave Roger a chance to share some of his personal faith in God and the Bible and how he sees faith and science as walking hand-in-hand. It was a really good interview with a great deal of good information, well worth the time. Currently, it has over 2.6 million views after only two days.

____________

Dr. Sean Pitman is a pathologist, with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology, currently working in N. California.

I am somewhat reluctant to write anything about this since I generally try to avoid discussing politics, especially within a religious context.  However, the resulting confusion and misinformation regarding health and medical care leads me to respond since it directly affects the lives and well-being of a great many people.

The Good:

There are a number of good things that RFK Jr. believes and promotes.  I believe that he is sincere in his desire to improve the health of the country, particularly children.  So, I do believe that his motives are good.  He has also urged a number of good points of health.

Sugar Consumption:

RFK Jr. has argued that “sugar is poison” and urged Americans to eliminate added sugar from their diets entirely. He argues that excess sugar consumption is linked to serious health risks like obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and tooth decay. His proposed actions to reduce sugar consumption include:

• Stronger labeling laws and new federal dietary guidelines recommending people avoid added sugar completely.
• Encouraging states to align nutrition programs with evidence-based dietary guidelines.
• Efforts to restrict sugar in food assistance programs like SNAP, including preventing the use of SNAP benefits to purchase sugary drinks. (Link)

Now, regardless of the effectiveness of his efforts to enforce his ideas here on the masses, the basic idea that Americans consume to much refined sugar, and that this has led to numerous health problems, is true.

Vitamin D:

RFK Jr. has also promoted vitamin D (alongside vitamins A, C, B12, and E) as part of a healthy, well-balanced diet to promote health and a strong immune system.  Certainly, it is true that vitamin D deficiency is a serious problem, even in the United States.  Vitamin D deficiency is a widespread issue in the United States, affecting a significant portion of the population. Studies indicate that nearly 42% of adults in the US have a vitamin D deficiency. The overall prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency was 41.6%, with the highest rate seen in blacks (82.1%), followed by Hispanics (69.2%). (Link)

This is a real problem because vitamin D isn’t really a vitamin. It’s a hormone that regulates many bodily functions, to include the human immune system (Link). Vitamin D also helps to restore and maintain the calcium in our bones, where 99% of it resides. Without sufficient vitamin D, bones can become weak and fragile. Some studies show a possible connection between vitamin D and protection against cancer, heart disease, bacterial and viral infections, COVID, and more. So, clearly, it’s important to have enough, but not too much, since vitamin D, along with vitamins A, E, and K, are fat soluble, meaning that one can actually overdose on these vitamins.

Here’s an interesting video by well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult, who discusses the amazing benefits of sunlight in fighting disease, to include the benefits of infrared light as well as vitamin D:

Heavy Metals:

RFK Jr. also sees heavy metals in foods as a problem. He has openly discussed his personal experience with mercury poisoning, which he attributed to fish consumption, and the chelation therapy he underwent as a result. (Link)  It is true that fish, like tuna and salmon, for instance, contain high levels of mercury to the point that regular consumption should be avoided.  What is also surprising is that common foods, like rice for example, also commonly contain high levels of heavy metals like arsenic, cadmium, and mercury.  Arsenic was found in 100% of rice samples tested from stores in 20 metro areas and exceeded 100 parts per billion in 1 in 4. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) arsenic limit for infant rice cereal, which is 100 parts per billion (ppb). Arsenic showed up at the highest levels, followed by cadmium. Lead and mercury were found in smaller amounts. (Link)

SDA Vaccine Statements:

As an aside, a motion to review the Vaccine Statements of the Seventh-day Adventist Church (April 15, 2015 & October 25, 2021) was forwarded at the current General Conference session, twice, and was decidedly voted down each time, effectively endorsing these Statements – which a revision of the 2015 statement that evidently was listed on the Church’s official website with a minor difference in wording compared to the actual Statement voted by ADCOM. (Link)

The Bad:

The problem, of course, is that RFK Jr. doesn’t just promote good health and medical advice.  He also promotes bad and misleading medical advice, and makes general health policies along these lines as well.

Vaccines:

His main problem here is that he has long been opposed to vaccines – particularly for children. He has long accepted the sensational arguments and conspiracy theories of anti-vaccine advocates. And, as he gained positions of political influence and power, these ideas have resulted in a great deal of harm, which is only bound to get worse given his new appointment as Health Secretary.  Diseases that were long considered nearly eradicated in this country have a good chance of making a comeback, given the ideas and proposed policies of RFK Jr.  The main source of confusion, which is very common, is a failure to recognize the difference between correlation and causation.

Measles Outbreaks:

The efforts of RFK Jr. in Samoa to talk families out of taking the measles vaccines contributed to a deadly outbreak that ended up with the deaths of more than 80 people, many of whom were young children. (Link) This same thinking is currently affecting the United States during our own measles outbreak. In the first seven months of 2025, confirmed measles cases have reached 1,288 — marking the most infections since 1992. (Link) Two children have died, so far, and 162 people have been hospitalized. However, instead of promoting the MMR vaccine, due to his fear of it, RFK Jr. has promoted healthful living and vitamin A instead.

Where did RFK Jr. get this idea that vitamin A could effectively deal with a measles outbreak?  Well, he got this idea from studies down in areas of vitamin A deficiency where the supplementation of vitamin A reduced the morbidity and mortality of measles (Link). The problem, of course, is that the population of the United States is not vitamin A deficient.  Giving vitamin A to those who already have adequate levels of vitamin A in their bodies does not provide additional benefits.  The positive studies in a 2005 Cochrane review were all done in Africa. The two non-African studies in Japan and England did not show a benefit. A 2021 study in Italy also showed no mortality reduction when children with measles were given vitamin A. In resource-rich countries, where vitamin A deficiency is rare, vitamin supplementation doesn’t seem to do anything. (Link)  Again, fat-soluble vitamins like vitamin A, D, E and K will remain in the system and can build up to toxic levels. Multiple children in Covenant Children’s Hospital in Texas experienced liver toxicity after they reportedly used vitamin A to treat their measles symptoms.

Vaccines and Autism:

RFK Jr. has long believed in and has revived the long heavily studied and discredited theory that vaccines are tied to autism in children.  This whole notion started with Andrew Wakefield, who wrote a paper, now known to be fraudulent, which was published in The Lancet in 1998. In this paper, Wakefield claimed that childhood autism spectrum disorder was related to the MMR vaccine. He deliberately falsified data in this paper (Link, Link), and the paper was eventually retracted. Of course, we now have abundant evidence that vaccines do not increase the risk of autism. (Link)

If not vaccines, are there any known risks that do increase the risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD)?  For a while, it was thought that maternal health issues were likely associated with ASD.  However, recent studies have called this into question as well, suggesting that many maternal health issues might not be causally associated with an increased risk of ASD. (Link)

Lee and others caution against interpreting the paper as meaning that autism isn’t affected at all by maternal health, or that it’s entirely genetically determined. The analyses used in the paper are a “blunt instrument” that can’t get at the mechanisms underlying autism, he adds. (Link)

So, this issue remains a complex one, but not one associated with childhood vaccines.

Amish Children Don’t Have Autism:

The Amish did not fare better than anyone else within a given age category during the pandemic, and their unvaccinated children are no healthier than vaccinated children. (Link)

Aborted Fetal Tissue in Vaccines:

RFK Jr. has also forwarded the idea that the MMR vaccine contain aborted fetal tissue. Here’s what’s really going on:

To develop certain vaccines, viruses are grown in human cell lines to weaken them so they can trigger an immune response without causing illness. Ratner said researchers discovered decades ago that fetal cells can support the growth of some viruses in ways other cells cannot. Fetal cells, unlike animal cells, are not contaminated with other viruses…

After the virus is grown, the cells are broken open and filtered to remove any cellular material, leaving only the virus, Amy Edwards, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist in Cleveland and vice president of the Infectious Diseases Society of Ohio, told MedPage Today. While trace amounts of DNA may remain, the fragments are so tiny and degraded that they pose no risk.

Kennedy and others have suggested that these fragments could integrate into a person’s DNA and cause damage, but scientists say that is biologically implausible.

“Life on earth is nucleic acid-based, so every time you eat or drink something, you’re awash in cell-free DNA. It’s everywhere,” Edwards said. “If cell-free DNA were dangerous, we would all be dead.” (Link)

The Use of Mercury in Vaccines:

As far as mercury in childhood vaccines is concerned, again, thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001. (Link)
.
Consider also that the level of mercury that infants get from breastfeeding alone far exceeds the levels of mercury taken in from vaccines… yet without apparent toxic effect. I assume that you’re not opposed to breastfeeding? An infant who is exclusively breastfed will ingest and absorb more than 15 times the quantity of mercury that was contained in the influenza vaccine. This doesn’t even count the additional amounts of mercury, organic and inorganic, that the child will ingest and absorb from the water is fairly significant at 0.002 mg/L (not to mention the mercury levels in the other foods that the child consistently ingests). Compare this to the 0.025 mg that a child is injected with from a vaccine containing thimerosal (before thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines). Now, it is recommended that a child drink between 1.5 and 2 liters of water per day. The level of mercury is ingested and absorbed, just from drinking water alone, would equal the amount within a flu shot within less than a week! – every week!

Currently, the recommended daily allowance of mercury that is thought to be non-toxic is 0.1 μg/kg/day. For a 10 kg child, that would be 1 μg/day. At this rate, it would take only 25 days to reach the level of mercury present within a thimerosal vaccine of 25 μg (roughly the same amount of elemental mercury contained in a 3-ounce can of tuna fish). This suggests that an infant or toddler child who is not vaccinated still takes in at least an amount of mercury equivalent to a dozen vaccines every year… yet without toxic effects? – especially considering that there is about 2 μg/L of mercury in water alone?

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS):

There is also the claim that the childhood vaccine schedule increases the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). A paper was published in 2021 by Neil Z Miller suggesting an association between SIDS and vaccines based on his Analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019. (Link) Note that the question of SIDS and vaccines has been around for a while. Another analysis of VAERS data looked at 1,244 deaths of children reported from 1997 to 2013, including 1,165 under age 1. There were 544 deaths attributed to SIDS where an autopsy report or death certificate was available, making it the most common cause of death. Among the children who died, those reports say, 79.4% received at least one vaccine on the same day. (Link)  A common problem in interpreting these results is that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. This is a huge issue in medical science. Separating correlation from causation is often difficult, and even otherwise intelligent people often get confused here.

The problem is that Miller, who is also a well-known opponent of vaccines in general (Link), misunderstands of the purpose and nature of the VAERS database (which is a very common problem, particularly among those opposed to vaccines). The VAERS database, maintained by the FDA and CDC, is not able to establish causation. VAERS data, on their own, cannot be used to establish whether an adverse event such as death is caused by a vaccine. Infant deaths reported to VAERS have decreased since the 1990s, when the federal government and other groups launched “Back to Sleep,” a national campaign to educate caregivers and parents about reducing the risk of SIDS. In order to establish causation, research studies would be required to demonstrate a statistically significant increased rate of SIDS among vaccinated as compared to unvaccinated infants. And, multiple research studies have concluded that no concerning patterns exist among VAERS-reported deaths that would point to vaccines as a cause. Numerous other large-scale studies and research reviews, conducted over many years, have also confirmed that vaccines do not cause SIDS. In fact, these studies have shown that not only do vaccines not cause SIDS, but they may also decrease the risk by 50%. (Link)

Too Many Vaccines:

The claim that children are given “too many vaccines” is based on a misunderstanding of how the human immune system works.  The human immune system is exposed to novel foreign antigens every day, especially babies who crawl around on the ground and put everything in their mouths. In fact, keeping babies and children too clean isn’t good because this reduces antigen exposure that is necessary to properly develop the immune system to recognize a host of foreign antigens.  Exposure to a little dirt is a good thing, not a bad thing.  The immune systems of children and babies can handle hundreds and thousands of antigens.  The few dozen vaccines given are a drop in the bucket in comparison to the antigen exposures that a child’s immune system experiences and should experience.

Consider also (as explained well in the video clip below), that the number of antigens in the childhood vaccine schedule has actually decreased significantly since the 1980s, not increased (thousands of antigens vs. 320 antigens today). And, again, this really doesn’t matter as far as the number of antigens that the immune system can handle.

Continued COVID-19 and mRNA Vaccine Misinformation:

Largest Autopsy Study:

The “Largest Autopsy Study” was written by Peter McCullough and others who are also well-known for spreading false and misleading information on vaccines, claimed that:

.

“There is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases.”

.

This pre-print was withdrawn from The Lancet and later from the journal Forensic Science International in August of 2024. Why? Because of concerns about the paper, including “inappropriate” citations and design methodology; “errors, misrepresentation, and lack of factual support for the conclusions”; along with “failure to recognize and cite disconfirming evidence.” Also note that this paper was based on 44 studies comprising 325 autopsies. What is most interesting is that the authors of the studies themselves came to the opposite conclusion. 105 of the autopsies cited in the McCullough paper came from a single paper from Colombia. The authors of this paper found “no relation between the cause of death and vaccination.” Similarly, the McCullough and his co-authors counted 24 of 28 autopsies from a study from Singapore as vaccine-related, even though the original authors identified “no definite causative relationship” to mRNA vaccines. The authors of a German study also attributed 13 of 18 autopsy deaths to preexisting diseases, but McCullough et al., decided 16 of these cases were vaccine-related. (Link, Link)  McCullough and the other authors of his paper didn’t perform the autopsies themselves.  They reinterpreted the autopsy cases of others based only on the reports of others and in opposition to how the authors of these reports interpreted their own cases. This isn’t how good science is done.  This is an example of simply making stuff up out of this air in an effort to support one’s own preconceived notions of reality.

.

In short, the autopsy reports come from 14 countries that collectively administered some 2.2 billion vaccine doses. If the COVID-19 vaccines truly were as dangerous as the review authors contend, this would be evident in other data sources — but it’s just not there. Vaccine safety surveillance systems and other studies from across the globe have found that serious side effects can occur, but they are relatively rare.

.

Vaccines Saved Millions of Lives During the Pandemic:

Also, during the pandemic, hospitalization rates for those who were unvaccinated were much more likely to die compared to those who were vaccinated.” (Link)

This was certainly true in Northern California, where I was the lab director for large regional hospitals that were being inundated by the very sick and the dying, the significant majority of whom were unvaccinated. The same was true in Southern California in the large ICU run by my brother-in-law, the pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult. In fact, the common saying at the time, that the pandemic had turned into a pandemic of the unvaccinated, was unfortunately true.

mRNA Vaccines and Female Infertility:

Last month (06/25) a study was published suggesting reduced fertility in women who received an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19.

.

Monthly COVID-19 vaccination and birth data for women in the Czech Republic aged 18–39 years were retrieved for the period from January 2021 to December 2023… Successful conception (SC) rates were substantially lower for women vaccinated against COVID-19 before SC than for those who were not vaccinated. These hypothesis-generating and preliminary results call for further studies of the potential influence of COVID-19 vaccination on human fecundability and fertility. (Link)

.

This is on top of a study published in March of 2025 that showed, “that both mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines may detrimentally impact ovarian reserve in rats, primarily through accelerated follicular loss and alterations in apoptotic pathways during folliculogenesis.” (Link)

.

There are a few problems here. The first is that the rat study used the human dose of the mRNA vaccines without any reduction, despite the massive size differences between humans and rats.

The fact is that, while interesting, those citing the Czech and rat studies as evidence of reduced fertility for vaccinated human women are strongly countered by studies showing that vaccinated women do not suffer from any detectable ovarian damage.

• Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH): Studies have consistently found no significant difference in AMH levels before and after receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. AMH is a key indicator of ovarian reserve, reflecting the number of remaining follicles.
• Antral Follicle Count (AFC): Research also indicates no significant change in AFC after COVID-19 vaccination, further supporting the conclusion that ovarian reserve is not negatively impacted. AFC measures the number of small follicles visible on ultrasound.
• Ovarian Response in IVF: Studies focusing on women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) have found that mRNA vaccination does not negatively affect ovarian response to stimulation or oocyte quality. (Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link, Link)

Why might this be for human women? When female rats are so negatively effected?  Well, its probably because so little of the mRNA from the vaccine make it to human ovaries.  The majority of the mRNA does stay at the site of injection, followed by local lymph nodes and then the liver. Only minute amounts make it to the ovaries (<0.1%) and are not associated with detectable ovarian damage or increased miscarriage rates compared to the unvaccinated. (Link)

In several organs (brain, kidneys, heart, ovaries, and testes) this mRNA was not detectable even on day 2 after the immunization. At the injection site (muscle) and in lymph nodes, this mRNA was detectable up to 60 days after the immunization. (Link)

Children and Pregnant Women Blocked from mRNA Vaccines:

Based on similar misinformation to that already described, RFK Jr. has removed access to mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 from women and children, claiming that healthy children don’t need to get vaccinated since it is very unlikely for children to die of COVID-19.  In response, a lawsuit has been issued, as of July 7, 2025, by six leading medical organizations, including the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American College of Physicians, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the Massachusetts Public Health Alliance, along with an anonymous pregnant physician, against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as the current Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) (Link, Link). This lawsuit alleges that Kennedy unlawfully removed COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women and dismissed expert advisors from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing them with individuals who espouse anti-vaccine viewpoints.

.

____________

Dr. Sean Pitman is a pathologist, with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology, currently working in N. California.

This past Friday (2/21/25), Dr. Ben Carson, one of the most recognizable members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was interviewed, along with Pastor Ron Kelley, by Dr. Lela Lewis from the Liberty and Health Alliance in an effort to add pressure to the leadership of the SDA Church to remove and apologize for the two Vaccine Statements put out by the General Conference (April 15, 2015 & October 25, 2021) – in addition to their appeal for signatures to support this cause listed on their website: “Appeal for Action, Unity and Healing Among Seventh-day Adventists” (just over 9000 have signed so far).

Dr. Carson’s Arguments:

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin:

Dr. Carson starts off by claiming that mRNA vaccines should not have been authorized by the FDA (via “emergency use”) since other viable options to effectively combat COVID-19 infections were already known – such as the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the antiparasite drug ivermectin.

Hydroxychloroquine and West Africa:

“Look at a place like the western coast of Africa where they had 94% less occurrence of COVID than the rest of the world and you have to ask yourself why is that? That’s because they take antimalarials like hydroxychloroquine. But there was no curiosity. Why are they not getting this disease?”

The problem with this claim is that it was investigated. Many of us were hopeful early in the pandemic that HCQ might be helpful as a zine ionophore.  I personally wrote an article early on during the pandemic and pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult put out a video suggesting that HCQ be investigated as a potential treatment for COVID-19 infections (Link). The problem is that after extensive scientific investigations, it was discovered HCQ had no significant benefits against COVID-19 infections and was not related to the reduced symptoms along the west coast of Africa. So, our initial hopes for HCQ didn’t turn out to be supported by the weight of scientific evidence – unfortunately.

In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, some African countries, including those in Western Africa like Senegal and Cameroon, adopted HCQ as part of their treatment protocols, often influenced by initial reports from other regions (such as a small French study by Didier Raoult – subsequently retracted on 12/17/24 for “major scientific flaws and may have breached ethics regulations”) suggesting potential benefits. Observational claims from countries such as Senegal reported low death rates or reports from Djibouti where the use of HCQ alongside antibiotics suggested a possible correlation with better outcomes. For instance, Senegal continued HCQ use despite WHO warnings, with officials citing “encouraging” results, and Cameroon integrated it into state protocols. However, these claims were not backed by rigorous, peer-reviewed clinical trials specific to Western Africa.

Globally, the scientific consensus shifted against HCQ’s efficacy for COVID-19 because of a good number of large-scale scientific studies. The WHO’s Solidarity Trial and the RECOVERY Trial in the UK, found no significant benefit for hydroxychloroquine in reducing mortality or viral load among hospitalized patients, and some noted potential risks like cardiac arrhythmias. Other good studies found similar non-beneficial results (Spivak, Gilmar Reis). Several other trials that were claimed to show positive results had serious methodological flaws (Link, Link).

And, it’s not as though HCQ has no potential side effects. The Therapeutic Goods Administration or TGA-approved drug information fact sheet describes several undesirable HCQ interactions with other drugs as well as several toxic effects of variable frequency: blurring of vision (common, > 1/100 patients), irreversible retinopathy (uncommon), and cardiomyopathy (rare). Retinal examination is advised every 3-6 months in patients taking HCQ, a hidden cost. Other reported but rare effects are liver toxicity, hypoglycemia in diabetics, reactivation of hepatitis B infection, and arrhythmias (Link).

So, what was it that actually caused the relatively low COVID-19 mortality in West Africa? – if not for the use of HCQ as Dr. Carson claims? Well, there are several factors to consider here such as the existence of a significantly younger average population in this region of the world, prior exposure to related pathogens, and underreporting of illnesses and deaths due to limited health systems in this region.

Ivermectin and Southern India:

“Same thing in Southern India with ivermectin.”

Again, there simply is no good scientific evidence from large-scale, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that specifically demonstrates that ivermectin effectively suppresses COVID-19 – in Eastern India or anywhere else.

In Eastern India, in particular, a notable study was conducted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Patna, Bihar—a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in 2021 (Link). This trial enrolled adult patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and administered ivermectin (12 mg on days 1 and 2) to the intervention group, while the control group received a placebo. The results showed only a marginal benefit in terms of successful hospital discharge (shorter by about one day on average), but no significant differences in other outcomes like symptom resolution, viral clearance, or mortality. The study concluded that ivermectin’s inclusion in treatment regimens “could not be said with certainty” to provide clear benefits, highlighting its limited impact in this context.

Beyond this trial, broader claims about ivermectin’s use in India, including Eastern regions, often stem from observational or anecdotal reports rather than controlled studies. For instance, during India’s second wave in 2021, some states—like Uttar Pradesh, which borders Eastern India—promoted ivermectin as part of prophylaxis and treatment protocols. A retrospective study from Uttar Pradesh suggested a reduction in cases among healthcare workers taking ivermectin prophylactically (odds ratio 0.27), but this was not specific to Eastern India and was not a randomized trial, making it prone to confounding factors like lockdown measures or natural disease trends. Eastern Indian states like Bihar and Odisha also saw ivermectin prescribed widely during the pandemic, often driven by national guidelines from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in April 2021, which listed it as an optional treatment for mild cases. However, these guidelines were later revised in September 2021 to drop ivermectin due to insufficient evidence of efficacy.

On September 26, 2021, The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the National Task Force on Covid-19 dropped the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from their revised guidelines for the treatment of the infection. This decision was taken after experts found that these drugs have little to no effect on Covid-related mortality or clinical recovery of the patient.

“HCQ may be considered for removal from the guideline, with a recommendation to use with caution only in clinical trial settings (since there is some genuine uncertainty regarding the possible benefit for severe cases and in low dose),” – said the document titled “considerations for exclusion of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine from the clinical guidance for management of adult Covid-19 patients”. (Link)

Globally, systematic reviews and meta-analyses (e.g., Cochrane, 2022) have found no consistent, high-quality evidence supporting ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment or prevention. The Eastern India trial aligns with this, showing no robust suppression effect. Claims of ivermectin’s success in India often circulate in non-scientific narratives, but epidemiological data suggests declines in cases (e.g., post-May 2021) were more likely tied to factors like vaccination rollout, natural immunity, or public health measures rather than ivermectin use.

The VAERS Database:

“The VAERS data on adverse reactions to the vaccine, the amount of complications and death from the covid vaccine, far exceeded anything previously – even with all the other things put together. Were people told that? Of course not.”

Dr. Carson is promoting a common misconception about the VAERS database – a misunderstanding as to the difference between causation and correlation.  The VAERS database was created and is maintained by the CDC and the FDA.  Despite its inherent messy nature, it was and is used to detect adverse reactions to vaccines and other medications and medical interventions that are above the expected background rate.  This means that anything and everything that happens to a person following vaccination can be reported to VAERS and is publically available – regardless of if there was any causal relationship (hence the “messy” and difficult-to-interpret nature of the VAERS database).  Still, VAERS does have its beneficial uses. For example, the VAERS database was used to detect some rare adverse effects causally related to the vaccines – such as post-vaccine Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and myopericarditis in young men following the second dose of the mRNA vaccines (Link). Consider also that GBS and myopericarditis are more common and generally more severe following a COVID-19 infection.

Consider, for example, that the risk of developing GBS after COVID-19 is estimated to be around 1 in 1000 cases while the risk of GBS following mRNA vaccination is 0.69 cases per million doses (Link, Link). The same is true for myopericarditis in young men. Those infected by COVID-19 had a significantly higher rate of severe myopericarditis requiring hospitalization and ending in death compared to the vaccinated (Link). And, one could significantly reduce one’s rate of post-vaccine myopericarditis by extending the time between vaccine doses.

What is important to remember here, contrary to Dr. Carson’s claim, is that the VAERS database did not show an increase in other serious side effects. The vaccinated were not filling up hospitals with the dead and the dying during the pandemic nor have the dire long-term predictions of antivaxxers taken place. Rather, the mRNA vaccines ended up saving millions of lives worldwide (Link). The unvaccinated were far more likely to get seriously ill and die (Link).  There was also no detectable increase in cancer rates or “turbo cancers” as some have claimed (Link). The vaccinated have not experienced an increase in the all-cause death rate compared to the unvaccinated. In fact, during the pandemic, just the opposite was true (Link).

The only way to know whether a vaccine causes a problem is to determine whether the problem occurs more frequently in those who are vaccinated than in those who aren’t. VAERS doesn’t provide that kind of information. But other federal programs, like the Vaccine Safety DataLink (VSD), do. The VSD program evaluates serious side effects in people who are vaccinated and compares them in real time to people who aren’t vaccinated. Most of the claims made in VAERS disappear under closer scrutiny by the VSD. – Labels Matter: VAERS, January 8, 2024 (Dr. Paul Offit)

Here is a relevant discussion about the origin and nature of VAERS by Dr. Paul Allan Offit – an American pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases, vaccines, immunology, and virology:

Mutations Weakened the Virus:

“The other thing to keep in mind is the virus mutated. At the first iteration of that virus, it was very virulent, particularly because no one had seen it. No one had immunity to it and it was quite deadly at that point. The alarm that was sounded was appropriate. But, over the course of time, several iterations later, it became much less virulent – to the point where the vaccine was probably more dangerous than the virus.”

The original Alpha and Delta variants were quite virulent – so much so that tens of thousands of Americans were dying every week (not to mention the many many more who were flooding hospitals around the country with severe illness). Next came the Omicron variant, which spread more easily, but seemed to be a bit less virulent.  However, it was still associated with a similar mortality rate (Link).  And the mRNA vaccine was still able to significantly reduce the hospitalization and mortality rates.  The claim that these vaccines were a “greater risk” at this point in time simply isn’t true.  The reality of the situation is that the unvaccinated were still requiring hospital ICU care and were dying at far greater rates compared to the vaccinated.  Dr. Carson didn’t see this because he wasn’t working in an ICU at the time.  My brother-in-law, the well-known pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult, saw this firsthand in the large ICU that he oversees in southern California.  I also personally witnessed this firsthand where I live in northern California – as did frontline medical providers all around the world.

“Today… the virus is no worse than the common cold.”

The current weekly death rate from COVID-19 is 736 (Link).  While not great, it is, in fact, less than the death rate attributed to the “common cold” or “flu” virus this season.

“For the week ending on Jan. 25, nearly 1.7% of all deaths nationwide were attributed to the flu, compared to roughly 1.5% being the result of COVID-19, according to CDC data. Rates of influenza hospitalizations are more than three times higher than COVID-19 hospitalizations amid this season’s record wave of flu infections.” (Link)

Yet again, however, the death rates for those who are vaccinated are significantly less than those who are not. Dr. Carson fails to recognize this reality.

Mandates not a part of American Culture:

Dr. Carson goes on to point out that “mandates are not a part of American culture”.

While I might agree that the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, in particular, were counterproductive in their general application during the pandemic, it isn’t true that vaccines aren’t commonly mandated in the United States. Vaccine mandates are, in fact, very common in this country. Most school systems in this country require numerous vaccines.  Various jobs, particularly related to healthcare work, also require numerous vaccines.

Yet Dr. Carson suggests that such vaccine mandates could give rise to religious mandates – such as requiring one to attend church or what day to attend church.  I’m sorry, but public health mandates, to include such things as speed limits on our roadways, the wearing of seat belts, non-smoking areas, and anything else that might affect the freedoms and liberties of those around us, are what governments are supposed to do – as ordained by God (Romans 13:4).  Governments are all about setting up civil mandates that are actually enforced by civil penalties.  And we, as Christians, are called to obey these government mandates as long as they do not directly counter a command of God Himself.

Vaccines in the Military:

Dr. Carson goes on the praise the Trump Administration for “restoring the positions the pay for the military people who refused to get the vaccine.”

I personally see this as a problem.  When one signs up for the military, one relinquishes numerous personal liberties. Many vaccines have long been required by the military – long before COVID-19.  Why should a soldier be able to pick and choose here?

When I was in the army I received dozens of vaccines – to include five vaccines for anthrax when I was stationed in S. Korea that were of questionable efficacy against weaponized anthrax. Yet, I had no problem with this since there is nothing in the Bible that would remotely suggest that one could refuse vaccines, in the military, for religious liberty reasons.

This is in light of the fact that I was brought up for Court Martial, twice, for refusing to work on Sabbath in ways that I thought went against a direct command of God. The same cannot be said for refusing vaccines – at least not for the vast majority of soldiers. Allowing soldiers to determine such things for themselves, against orders, would end up undermining overall morale and the authority of the chain of command and reduce the fighting ability of our military. I mean, consider that it is far more risky to be ordered into the front lines during combat, as either a combatant or a medic, where a request for “exception” because of the risk involved for “religious” or any other reason would be flatly rejected by the commanding officer – for obvious reasons. Soldiers must be instantly willing to obey commands that put their own personal lives in serious jeopardy for the sake of the cause.

Closing Thoughts:

Dr. Carson has done many great things during his lifetime. His 1990 book, “Gifted Hands”, about growing up the son of a single mother who could not read or write yet found a way to inspire him to appreciate education and excel to the point of becoming a world-renowned neurosurgeon, has inspired millions worldwide – including me. His run for president of the United States also inspired many – particularly minorities. So, it is with deep regret that I feel compelled to write against the misinformation that Dr. Carson is currently promoting regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccines.

While I agree that the vaccine mandates were counterproductive during the pandemic, I cannot understand or support Dr. Carson’s arguments against the mRNA vaccines that arrived at just the right time to save millions of lives – as a miraculous gift of God.  The opposition of a minority of scientists and medical providers, like Carson, is a mystery to me given the significant weight of very good scientific evidence that is currently in hand.  It seems to me that those like Dr. Carson, who see things differently, have been unduly influenced by popular conspiracy theories and other sources of misinformation that have been widely promoted, but lack a rational basis in the weight of good empirical data.

And, it wouldn’t be the first time that Dr. Carson has drifted wide of the mark outside of his area of expertise as a neurosurgeon – such as the time in 1998 when he unfortunately publically claimed that, “Joseph built the pyramids in order to store grain. And all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves” (Link). Then, in the early 2000s, Dr. Carson also, unfortunately, promoted the shady dietary supplement company Mannatech when it was marketing its products as cures for all kinds of serious diseases – including autism, Down Syndrome, cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, and even HIV/AIDS. Dr. Carson even suggested that it helped to cure his own prostate cancer noting, “Within about three weeks my symptoms went away, and I was really quite amazed.” (Link, Link, Link).  It all just goes to show that even someone who is absolutely brilliant in one area of medicine or science can go completely off base when outside of their area of expertise.

In any case, it would be a significant step backward for the SDA Church, as an organization, to deny or remain silent regarding the many amazing advances in medical science. These include vaccines against numerous diseases that have long plagued humanity – diseases that are now almost non-existent, thanks to vaccines, to the point that almost no one remembers their severity. I worry that arguments and attitudes similar to Dr. Carson’s will end up taking us backward in the fight against disease.  And, it’s already happening.  Consider, for example, the recent measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico that is disproportionately affecting the unvaccinated to a significant degree. This outbreak is the clear result of reduced vaccination rates following the significant increase in vaccine misinformation that flooded social media and has been promoted by leaders like Dr. Carson since the pandemic – being applied to vaccines in general (Link, Link).

Blue Zone People:

This isn’t a denial of our own unique health message or the promotion of good natural remedies and healful living in general.  After all, Seventh-day Adventists are the longest-lived ethnically diverse “Blue Zone” people in the world because of what God has taught us about healful living.

On average, “Adventist men live 7.3 years longer and Adventist women live 4.4 years longer than other Californians” (Link). Sure, there are other “Blue Zones” of long-lived peoples, but these groups are all genetically related.  SDAs are ethnically diverse and yet are still part of the longest-lived Blue Zone people of the world. Therefore, as a healthcare leader, it is the duty of the medical arm of the Church to provide and promote the best health and medical options and information available at all times. This is particularly important during a pandemic when people are desperately searching for answers.

While healthful living is always the best place to start, there are times when the human body needs something extra, something beyond even healthful living, in this fallen world. The human immune system is not what it was when Adam and Eve were new from the Creator’s hand.

Ellen White lost two sons to infections that would have been easily curable by modern antibiotics. Henry died of pneumonia at the age of 16. John Herbert died at the age of just three months from erysipelas (a bacterial skin infection). She would not have opposed the use of life-saving antibiotics if they had been available in her day. After all, when she was told that missionaries were suffering and dying from malaria because they were refusing to use quinine (because she had written against the general use of quinine), she wrote to them, “If quinine will save a life, use quinine” (Link).

Smallpox was also a scourge in her day, so much so that she did not oppose the use of vaccines as an aid to help the human immune system better fight against smallpox infections.  Even though she did have a bad experience when vaccinating her children when they were young, she did not oppose her adult son, William, when he and his associates were vaccinated for smallpox – and was likely vaccinated against smallpox herself (Link).

So, is it not then the duty of the SDA Church to do what Ellen White did? – to broadcast to all that, “If vaccines will save a life, use vaccines”?  After all, the scientific evidence that vaccines can and do save lives is overwhelming. They help to educate the human immune system without one having to first experience the risk of a serious infection. Sure, as with quinine and all other medical therapies, there are always risks.  However, the risks of not taking vaccines, particularly during a pandemic, are much higher.  It’s all a matter of how one balances risks versus benefits – which Ellen White understood very well in her own day.  It is not a lack of faith or confidence in God to take advantage of all of the gifts of scientific knowledge, advancement, and light that He has given to humanity.

Healthful Living and Useful Natural Remedies:

Yes, the promotion of healthful living and natural remedies is also important and very helpful.  The well-known SDA pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult, for example, put out a large number of videos on YouTube and on his MedCram website (viewed by millions around the world) promoting a large number of helpful natural remedies during the pandemic, to include the use of hot/cold fomentations, sunlight and infrared light, forest bathing, diet and exercise, sleep, vitamin D, zinc, etc. Here are a few talks that he gave on the beneficial effects of sunlight alone: Link, Link, Link, Link, Link.  It’s just that he also promoted the benefits of the mRNA vaccines in the fight against COVID-19 infections – particularly for the elderly and immunocompromised (Link). He simply promoted everything that would reduce risk and provide the greatest chance, for most people, of avoiding hospitalization, long-term injury, and death.

Note again, however, that even though it is the duty of a medical provider to share the best of the medical knowledge that is available, it is not his or her duty to compel or otherwise force compliance with such medical advice.  Personal liberties should be maintained so long as they do not interfere with the health and safety of others in society.  Such, then, were the essential duties of the Church – particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s just that removing the Church’s Vaccine Statements would also undermine the duty that the Church has been given as a source of the best and most balanced health and medical advice in the world.