Refuting Darwinism, point by point

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

"It is easier for me to believe in God than to believe in evolution."
"We tend to call seeking the "easier path" intellectual laziness -- but I guess that is a virtue in religious circles."

Not intellectual laziness but the application of Occam's Razor.

COMPLEXITY AND SIMPLICITY:
Occam's Razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. IT UNDERLIES ALL SCIENTIFIC MODELLING AND THEORY BUILDING. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
THOUGH THE PRINCIPLE MAY SEEM RATHER TRIVIAL, IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR MODEL BUILDING BECAUSE OF WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE "UNDERDETERMINATION OF THEORIES BY DATA". FOR A GIVEN SET OF OBSERVATIONS OR DATA, THERE IS ALWAYS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF POSSIBLE MODELS EXPLAINING THOSE SAME DATA. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.

For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam's razor would in this case guide you in choosing the "straight" (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution.

Occam's razor is especially important for universal models such as the ones developed in General Systems Theory, mathematics or philosophy, because there the subject domain is of an unlimited complexity. If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed. Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models. In mathematical modelling of systems, the principle can be made more concrete in the form of the principle of uncertainty maximization: from your data, induce that model which minimizes the number of additional assumptions.

This principle is part of epistemology, and can be motivated by the requirement of maximal simplicity of cognitive models. However, its significance might be extended to metaphysics if it is interpreted as saying that simpler models are more likely to be correct than complex ones, in other words, that "nature" prefers simplicity.

Is it more faithful to Occam's Razor to think that a million monkeys typing randomly on a million typewritters over an infinite period of time would be successful in writing the collected works of William Shakespeare, or is it more faithful to Occam's Razor to think that there was an intelligent designer of these writings?

HUMAN LIMITATIONS:
Scientific empiricism can be a useful tool but it is flawed. Its reliance upon human experience is both its strength and weakness. All of the concepts of physics, chemistry, and all of scientific investigation are dependent upon sense perception. But sense perception is by its very nature, not totally reliable. Errors arise from the presence of what psychologists call thresholds. There are three such, the upper threshold, the difference threshold, and the lower threshold. These thresholds occur for all of the senses but to illustrate let's consider hearing. The lower threshold can be described as the inaudible sounds made by playing a piano whose keyboard has been extended in pitch downward beyond that, which is perceivable by the human ear. The strings do vibrate and sound waves are generated but they cannot be heard. The upper threshold is simply the same situation at the opposite end of the keyboard. The difference threshold can be described as two strings of the piano tuned to the same note. They sound identical when struck. But tones sound differently only when their vibrations vary by five or six per second. If these two string's vibrations vary by only one or two per second, technically they are not the same note even though the difference cannot be heard.

These thresholds of human sensory experience demonstrate that: 1) It is impossible for human beings to know nature absolutely, 2) Empirical evidence ALONE is insufficient grounds for knowing anything, 3) Any denial of the possibility of intelligent design based upon empiricism spotlights the antecedent assumptions of the one making the denial. If human sensory experience is so unreliable in such a mundane matter as the tones from a piano how much more unreliable might it be in more complex matters?

In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is clear that all complex systems are in a continual process of being reduced to less complexity. In nature, it is scientifically impossible for a less complex system, organic or inorganic, to move from the less to the more complex.

You are mixing the Physics of the Universe as a whole with the Biology of an individual organism.

Biological systems take outside energy and use that energy to build a more complex system.

A tiny human embryo the size of a pin head can become a more complex 250 pound NFL linebacker. Howerever, in order to do this, solar energy had to be produced in the Sun and escape from the Sun, tens of thousands of pounds of plants had to be nurtured by that sunlight and eaten directly by the growing human or eaten by hundreds of cows, pigs and chicken that were in turn eaten by that growing human.

That tiny embryo does get more complex as it develops into that 250 pound NFL linebacker. However, the trail of chaos left behind by the feeding of that human is huge thereby satisfying the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The end result is a more complex indidual biological system paid for by the price of greater chaos in the Universe as a whole.

I am trying to figure out what the devil you are talking about.

Now let me see if I have this, the first life forms MUST have had the information to create a human in the first place? Is this what you are saying?

Maybe I am missing something major here, but I still don't get it, nor understand why that would be necessary.

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

They would just need the DNA for themselves, as that DNA is changed and added to over time and the lifeforms offspring becomes more complicated, this is over billions of years mind you, then the DNA for another species would be created, and so on and so forth, until finally the DNA for a HomoSapien would have developed and here we are. as the developement and needs for survival become more complicated the DNA and it's blueprint for a creature that would survive would become more complicated as well.

Why is that so hard to understand?

That's right, DNA can't become more complicated, any mutation would destroy DNA strands, NOT create it. But again, where did this idea come from? Oh, yeah, the 2nd law of thermodynamics if I am not mistaken, which has absolutely NOTHING with the above process. Therefore, the creationist/ID theory saying that this is impossible is therefore invalid, because it's premise is flawed.

DNA has changed over time, in bacteria it does, quickly enough to notice, such as when a bacteria becomes MORE resistant to antibiotics. There are those that claim that the DNA is the same, but different traits become stronger, and therefore those traits are all ready there, are what allows it to become resistant. I have yet to see proof of this, but creationists sure love to use it as such.

Creationists have NO proof that DNA CANNOT be added to, but are very quick to point out that it can't.

Sorry, but I believe that that hypothesis is wrong, it's a strawman, because there is no proof for it or against it YET. There will be proof for it, because evolution requires that that be the case, so far, most requirements of evolution have been met, that is why it is still a valid theory. Evolution makes predicitons about what will be found, and sure enough, those findings are made.

Creationism does not do this, because it can't, everything you ever needed to know about creationism is in this little phrase. "goddidit" and that's all YOU need to know.

Enjoy your little prison, I would rather be free.

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.