Refuting Darwinism, point by point

WorldNetDaily,com ^ | 1-11-03 | Interview of James Perloff

[DWar]

EVOLUTION WATCH Refuting Darwinism, point by point Author's new book presents case against theory in just 83 pages

Posted: January 11, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: In 1999, author James Perloff wrote the popular "Tornado in a Junkyard," which summarizes much of the evidence against evolution and is considered one of the most understandable (while still scientifically accurate) books on the subject. Recently, WND talked with Perloff about his new book, "The Case Against Darwin."

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

QUESTION: Your new book is just 83 pages – and the type is large. What gives?

ANSWER: This past March I got a call from Ohio. There has been a battle there to allow critical examination of evolutionary theory in public schools, and a gentleman wanted 40 copies of Tornado to give to state legislators and school board members. I was delighted to send him the books, but I also knew that a state legislator isn't likely to pick up anything that's 321 pages long.

Q: And not just state legislators.

A: Right. We live in an age when parents often don't have time to read anything long, and their kids, who are usually more into video, may not have the inclination.

Q: So what's the focus of this book?

A: I've divided it into three chapters. The first is called "Is Darwin's Theory Relevant to Our Lives?" In other words, is the subject of this book worth my time or not? A lot of people think this is simply a science issue. And to some of them, science is booooring. But actually, it's the teaching of Darwin's theory as a "fact" that starts many young people doubting the existence of God. Once we stop believing in God, we discard his moral laws and start making up our own rules, which is basically why our society is in so much trouble. In short, Darwinism is very relevant – it's much more than a science matter.

Q: You, yourself, were an atheist for many years, were you not, as a result of evolutionary teaching?

A: That's right. I thought evolution had discredited the Bible. In my books, I give examples of notables who became atheists from being taught evolution, such as Stalin and Carnegie. In fact, the atheist Boy Scout who's been in the news reportedly attributes his atheism to being taught evolution.

Q: Why do you think evolution has such a persuasively negative effect on faith?

A: First, it's taught as "scientific fact." When kids hear "scientific fact," they think "truth." Who wants to go against truth? Second, it's the only viewpoint that's taught. After the Supreme Court kicked God out of schools in the '60s, kids heard the evolutionist viewpoint exclusively. It's like going to a courtroom – if you only heard the prosecutor's summation, you would probably think the defendant guilty. But if you only heard the defendant's attorney, you'd think "innocent." The truth is, we need to hear both sides, and kids haven't been getting it on the subject of origins.

Q: OK, then what?

A: The second chapter is "Evidence Against the Theory of Evolution." Let's face it, no matter what Darwinism's social ramifications, that alone would not be a sufficient basis to criticize it, if it were scientifically proven true.

Q: In a nutshell – if that's possible – what is the scientific evidence against Darwinism?

A: In the book, I focus on six areas of evidence. First, mutations – long claimed by evolutionists to be the building blocks of evolutionary change – are now known to remove information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information – even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That has been laid out by Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "Not By Chance."

Q: What else?

A: Second, cells are now known to be far too complex to have originated by some chance concurrence of chemicals, as Darwin hypothesized and is still being claimed. We detail that in the book. Third, the human body has systems, such as blood clotting and the immune system, that are, in the words of biochemist Michael Behe, "irreducibly complex," meaning they cannot have evolved step-by-step. Behe articulated that in his book "Darwin's Black Box." And then there is the whole issue of transitional forms.

Q: What is a transitional form?

A: Darwin's theory envisioned that single-celled ancestors evolved into invertebrates (creatures without a backbone), who evolved into fish, who evolved into amphibians, who evolved into reptiles, who evolved into mammals. Now, a transitional form would be a creature intermediate between these. There would have to be a great many for Darwin's theory to be true.

Q: Are there?

A: There are three places to look for transitional forms. First, there's the living world around us. We see that it is distinctly divided – you have invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. But we don't see transitionals between them. If these creatures ever existed, why did none survive? It is too easy to explain it away by saying they all became extinct. And of course, there is the question: Why aren't these creatures evolving into each other today? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into fish today? Why aren't fish growing little legs and so forth?

Q: Where else would you look for a transitional form?

A: In the fossil record. And here we have a problem of almost comparable magnitude. We find no fossils showing how the invertebrates evolved, or demonstrating that they came from a common ancestor. That's why you hear of the "Cambrian explosion." And while there are billions of fossils of both invertebrates and fish, fossils linking them are missing. Of course, there are some transitional fossils cited by evolutionists. However, two points about that. First, there should be a lot more if Darwin's theory is correct. Second, 99 percent of the biology of an organism is in its soft anatomy, which you cannot access in a fossil – this makes it easy to invest a fossil with a highly subjective opinion. The Piltdown Man and the recent Archaeoraptor are examples of how easy it is to be misled by preconceptions in this arena.

Q: What is the other place where you can look for transitional forms?

A: Microscopically, in the cell itself. Dr. Michael Denton, the Australian molecular biologist, examined these creatures on a molecular level and found no evidence whatsoever for the fish-amphibian-reptile-mammal sequence. He summarized his findings in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."

The last chapter is "Re-evaluating Some Evidences Used to Support the Theory" of evolution. That would include evidences that have been discredited, and also some evidences presented as proof that in fact rest on assumptions.

Q: What evidences have been discredited?

A: Ernst Haeckel's comparative embryo drawings. The human body being laden with "vestigial structures" from our animal past. Human blood and sea water having the same percentage of salt. Babies being born with "monkey tails." These are not foundational evidences, but they still hold sway in the public mind.

Q: You mentioned assumptions as proofs.

A: Yes. Anatomical similarities between men and animals are said to prove common ancestry. But intelligent design also results in innumerable similarities, as in the case of two makes of automobile. Also, what has been called "microevolution" – minor adaptive changes within a type of animal – is extrapolated as evidence for "macroevolution" – the changing of one kind of animal into another. However, a species is normally endowed with a rich gene pool that permits a certain amount of variation and adaptation. Certainly, those things happen. But the change is ordinarily limited to the confines of the gene pool. It doesn't mean a fish could adapt its way into being a human.

Q: You covered a lot of this ground in "Tornado in a Junkyard." Can readers expect something new from "The Case Against Darwin"?

A: There is a bit of new material, but no, if you've read "Tornado," or for that matter, if you read the July 2001 Whistleblower, where we looked at evolution, you already know most of the points. What's new is the size. This is a book to give to a busy friend, a book for a high-school student to share with his science teacher.

"The Case Against Darwin" by James Perloff is available from ShopNetDaily.

[rmmcdaniell]

The point is; do you really believe in spontaneous generation? [molecules to the cell]

I did not say that. My original post was to expose the faulty interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics of the person I was responding to. This thread is about evolution, which does not explain the origin of life but the transformation of one species into another over many generations. Science has not explained how the first cells have come into being from inanimate matter. My mind is open as to how life and the universe began. I consider both possibilities that life came into being through natural processes or was the result of a higher intelligence. Right now I’m not convinced of either and I’m not going to take a theistic view by default simply because there is no current scientific explanation. There is one thing that I am certain of is that I disagree with the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. I do believe this universe is billions of years old and that after the origin of the first cells evolution resulted in all the myriad of life forms inhabiting this planet.

[Condorman]

You are here.

[CyberCowboy777]

or so you assume

[Lurking Libertarian]

It is easier for me to believe in God than to believe in evolution.

Why do you feel that these are mutually-exclusive possibilities? I believe in both.

[CyberCowboy777]

I think he is referring to the Judeo-Christian God.

Genesis 1:26 - 28 is very clear.

Like I said though, that is the Judeo-Christian God.

[diode]

So to be perfectly clear, am I to understand that you may accept a theistic view of the origin of cells if there is no scientific proof to the contrary?

[Lurking Libertarian]

I think he is referring to the Judeo-Christian God.

So am I. (At least to the Jewish God).

[rmmcdaniell]

So to be perfectly clear, am I to understand that you may accept a theistic view of the origin of cells if there is no scientific proof to the contrary?

Wrong, go and re-read my post. I said I wouldn't take a theistic view by default in the absence of a scientific explanation. I have no respect for those who immediately say “God did it” whenever something can’t be explained. In order for me to ever accept a belief that a higher intelligence created the first cells would require hard evidence that such a designer exists and did indeed to that work. Likewise in order for me to accept a natural explanation for the origin of life would require evidence that inanimate matter did come together to form cells. This is why the so-called creation science is bogus. They never offer any evidence of their designer; all they do is try to disprove evolution. Even if someday evolution is proven to be wrong, intelligent design cannot be considered a scientific theory until evidence shows the existence and work of the designer(s). Disproving one theory does in no way validate another. If the theory of gravity is someday shown to be wrong, it doesn’t automatically mean that invisible fairies pull objects down to the earth.

So to finally answer your question there are currently two hypothesis on the origin of life.

1. Spontaneous generation from inanimate matter.

2. Higher intelligence designed it.

In order for me to accept one or the other require positive evidence for one of the two options. Negative evidence for one of the two does not by default prove the other since an as yet unknown third hypothesis cannot be ruled out.

[CyberCowboy777]

Yep

and so were the Israelites at the foot of mount Sinai

[metacognative]

Thank you for your coherent thoughts. I too once accepted upward evolution as I was taught in school. But such organizing effort IS counter to the Second Law. Sunshine is available to all matter in the solar system and energy is available to deep sea life at volcanic vents. But this does NOT explain the development of complexity.
Clauswitz and Darwin could not have both been correct.

[Saturnalia]

Please read the prior posts regarding the 2nd Law.
PLEASE. Do us all a favor by learning why even Answers In Genesis doesn't recommend that argument.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[GregoryFul]

In nature, it is scientifically impossible for a less complex system, organic or inorganic, to move from the less to the more complex.

In nature, it is self-evident that less complex systems give rise to more complex systems. By utilizing the energy found in abundance near a star.

[f.Christian]

Every hear of the 3rd way . . . soft socialism - - - evolution ! ! !

[diode]

Alright, so your default position is essentially agnostic. A theisitic postion would then follow only if the following conditions are met:
1. The theory that cells originated from inanimate materials/mechanisms is disproved.
2. An "unknown third hypothesis" is disproved.
3. Intelligent design is proved.

Only then, it seems, would you conclude that the universe was intelligently designed. Do I have it right.

[steve-b]

Time to start a pool on when World Nut Daily runs its first article touting perpetual motion machines, penis growth pills, and other forms of nonsense at the same level as this article.

[gore3000]

Oh come now G3K, have you no imagination at all?

Fairy tales are not science. Science is about facts.

Those that were able to KEEP the egg with them were more likely to survive, therefore, you evolve the position of keeping the egg in the body, this keeps it warm until it is ready to hatch etc, it's in the body, well it no longer needs a shell to protect, the mothers body now protects it, so those that continued to evolve lost the shell, but kept the amniotic sack, well, the egg no longer needs the white of the egg any more because a form of nurishment is already there, so a way to get that nourishment evolves, you get the placenta, to take those nutirients directly from the mother bloodstream and transfer them to the babies bloodstream, therefore keeping it alive.

Well, the above shows very good imagination, but has quite a few problems scientifically which cannot be resolved by gradual change. Let me show you:

Without that entire system in place, the new organism cannot be fed. That entire system involves changes in the nutrition of the baby as well as a completely new way for the mother to provide the nutrition to the baby. It also requires a separate system of blood transmission which does not have oxygen in it and a complete separation of the blood of the infant from that of the mother. It is obvious that all the changes necessary for this to happen could not have happened stochastically in a single generation.

[gore3000]

I don't believe the universe can create something way beyond our intelligence.-bondserv-

This is called "Argument from incredulity". The problem with it is that just saying "I cannot believe that it is possible" does not amount to evidence against it.

So that means that you are for an 'argument from credulity'? If anything is possible then these discussions are fairly silly are they not? What we are trying to discuss is scientifically verifiable facts and science keeps showing that this incredulity is perfectly justified. Fairy tales are not science.

[gore3000]

Why would the first lifeforms need all the info of a human genome in order for there to be humans?

They would not need as much information as a human, but they still would need quite a bit, a lot more than could be in any reasonable way be said to have occurred by chance. That is why atheists and materialists cannot come up with any reasonable hypothesis for life arising from non-living matter which fits what is scientifically known about life.

[gore3000]

You're missing the fact that how the first life form(s) that started it all came into being isn't a part of the theory of evolution.

Okay then, if God created life (will you admit to that?) then why do evolutionists deem it impossible that He created man? How can you take God out of nature if He is known to exist?