Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by 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.
What an interesting construct you have of the theory of evolution. Perhaps you would be so good as to summarize how genetic variation, the principles of heredity, and the probability of reproductive success manage to provide a framework for astrophysics?
‘But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.’ (Matthew 6:33)
"Once there was a change in our family situation. Our pet dog passed away and we salved our grief by acquiring a new one-a blue cattle pup. He was intelligent and very mischievous. We had a lot of fun with him. while he was small, he would amuse us by trying to catch his own tail and bite it. He would spy the tip of his tail out of the corner of his eye, and, readying himself, lunge at it, as if hunting prey. But of course, the more he pounced, the more his tail moved out of his reach. The only way a dog can really have its tail is to allow it to be an attachment to its main body."
"The... tail comes along just fine---when it is not its owner's preoccupation."
"Jesus advises us that though there are many good and important things, only one can be most important-the kingdom of God and his righteousness. First things must come first. All of life, with its experiences, decisions and relationships, needs to be evaluated in light of the highest ideal."
"When God is given pride of place, the machinery of existence operates at its best."
It is the theory itself that is illogical. One takes on that characteristic to the degree to which one defends the logically contradictory elements of that theory.
Do not criticize a belief in miracles. The evolutionary system cannot exist without miracles:
Miracle One: Matter has always existed. Of course this defies all known physical laws in existence. Therefore the eternal existence of matter is a miracle. If you don't happen to believe matter is eternal then:
Miracle Two: Matter created itself.
Miracle Three: All matter in the universe, including all the matter in the billions of galaxies with the billions of stars in each galaxy, including the theoretical "dark matter" which is supposedly more massive than the universe itself, all matter was compressed into a unit the size of an atom. Explain the physical laws that allow for this. Reproduce it. Tell us how to falsify it.
Miracle Four: Life arose from non-life. The usual evolutionist response to this is that "here we are, therefore it happened." Imagine a creationist using the same "logic"! Nonetheless, it remains an evolutionary miracle. It is contrary to the law of biogenesis. The phenom cannot be reproduced. It cannot be falsified.
Miracles five through .......: All the impossible evolutionary leaps that seemed so impossible even to evolutionists that SJ Gould had to create a science fiction novel called punctuated equilibruim.
Therefore the miraculous is essential for the fabrication of origins to the philosophical materialist.
Flux // morph . . . puddle // muddle jumping - - - evo blather ? ? ?
For your own entertainment, think why it is not addressed.
The presuppositions necessary for a materialist worldview are not necessarily easy to explain. Fundamental to the materialist view of human origin is the underlying materialist presupposition of entirely natural explanations for everything. It is a problem for the philosophical materialist that life arose from non life. The view that life arose from non-life is also called spontaneous generation which, as we all know, is superstition.
This is why proponents of darwinism claim they don't have to deal with the issue. Who wants to defend spontaneous generation?
Who says that? It doesn't presuppose the Biblical accounts, but who says it doesn't presuppose any God?
What would you accept as evidence?
No I don't know you I only know what you have written here and this leads me to believe that you have closed your eyes to Logic [sic] and science and opened your heart to a pseudo-scientific agenda whose very existence is to deny basic scientific truth. You are the only [sic]who doesn't know me
I tend to point out errors to those who accuse me of being illogical.
I am a former evolutionist. I used the brain God gave me and took offense at the logical leaps and mental acrobatics evolution demanded.
This is common among creationists they attack before they even know what they are attacking because they fear
In all sincerity, you are drawing false conclusions from the evidence. You must strive to distinguish between a personal attack and a refutation of your argument. I do not fear you or your arguments. They do not threaten me. The idea of a Creator, however, threatens many materialists because of the implications:
If God created you, He might have some expectations.
If He has some expectations, they might cramp your lifestyle.
You might even be required to submit yourself to Him.
This is an unpleasant circumstance for many, therefore evolution.
You can wish away God, but that doesn't make Him disappear. What will you say to Him when you die? Will you tell him that he doesn't exist? When, on one side you glimpse Heaven and on the other you see Hell, if you wish them away will they disappear? If you are wrong, it will be too late to change your mind.
If you refuse to explain why evolution is illogical
I already did, and clearly too. Perhaps you have not read my posts.
I don't expect you to believe anything that is proved to you.
I believe everything that is proved. Prove something.
If God came down and proved the world was 6000 years old and explained how and why he choose to trick his creation I would believe (but only after examining the evidence).
This is the evidence you would accept? When you stand before Him, you will give Him that as an excuse why you embraced a lie?
He didn't trick His creation. I believe the evolutionists followed darwin into the woods. Therefore darwin tricked his followers.
Dembski, for one. Here's an exerpt from one of his essays:
But isn't intelligent design just a stone's throw from fundamentalist Christianity and rabid creationism? Even if a theory of intelligent design should ultimately prove successful and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the designer posited by this theory would have to be the Christian God or for that matter be real in some ontological sense. One can be an anti-realist about science and simply regard the designer as a regulative principle--a conceptually useful device for making sense out of certain facts of biology--without assigning the designer any weight in reality.
The above is from Is Intelligent Design Testable? by William Dembski.
Abiogenesis is an area of active research. It is also independent of evolution. To use an oft-repeated analogy, the science of meteorology does not propose an origin for water. Is this a liability for weathermen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.