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.
A regulative principle? How is that different from Darwinism?
He's not saying Darwinism isn't a regulative principle. He's saying ID is also a regulative principle.
Well, Dembski has stated that HE believes in God. I think he likes to dodge the question of who the designer is because he wants to discuss design, not religion.
Pascal's Wager? You might want to think about updating your material...
Spengler replies to readers . . .
"Thanks to Asia Times Online readers [letters below] who elaborated on the mythical pre-history of Middle-earth. My summary was truncated, and Tolkien enthusiasts might fairly raise objections. I note with pleasure that no Wagnerians yet have written to complain, validating the observation that Tolkien has taken back the Ring on behalf of the forces of light. If you prefer Wagner to Tolkien, you might be an Orc, and you should . . . seek (( original article // source )) - - - professional help."
Not sure,
Think about it. You've never seen any evidence for God but you're not sure what you'd accept. That is illogical.
Yet you refuse to share those illogical conclusions that you believe evolutionists make
I listed a few of them in a previous post on this thread. I asked you to go back and read my comments which you apparently did not do. How do you expect to carry on an intelligent conversation unless you actually read what is written? The question is rhetorical.
I think you are the one at a lose to decide which is which.
Are you as careful about science as spelling. That, fyi, is an ad hominem fallacy. Nonetheless, the oil in the tranny is too heavy for this cold weather.
"Well done my good and faithful servant[sic], you never took anything on faith alone and stood up to those who pressured you to believe lies about my creation.
Without Faith it is impossible to please God, since anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who try to find Him. - Hebrews 11:6
You exercise faith minute by minute-- look it up in the dictionary. It is not faith you despise, but faith in God.
With this I must bid you farewell. Perhaps we will meet on another thread.
First of all we are talking favorable mutations, the article does not claim there are any favorable mutations. In addition the article says that the extent of the analysis was insufficient to determine whether any mutations were passed on to future generations. How you can claim that this article disproves my statement that there were no favorable mutations in these explosions is beyond me. That there were numerous unfavorable ones is not even worth mentioning.
If you have anything to counter my statement, just post it here instead of insulting. Therefore I say again:
" There is no such evidence at all. Before one can make such a claim one has to show that even one single mutation has created greater complexity in any organism. There is no such proof"
If you have any evidence to the contrary, post it, right here where all can see it. Prove me wrong instead of insulting me.
Well, Dembski has stated that HE believes in God. I think he likes to dodge the question of who the designer is because he wants to discuss design, not religion.
Since he's claiming ID is a valid scientific theory why should he discuss religion? It's apparently the evos who want to keep bringing up religion in this context. ID as a theory can stand or fall on it's merits. The question is: Are there characteristics in life forms which appear to have been the result of intelligence? ID advocates have developed some fairly sophisticated arguments in favor of this proposition, such as irreducible complexity. The evo's answer seems to be: "No, since that would require God". So the evo's, for the most part, are treating ID as being about God and not taking the question seriously, presumably because they are in most cases committed atheists. This is a kind of circular reasoning in my view.
I'm not saying he should, but he immediately encounters "Ok, who's the designer?" type questions when he claims there's design. Sort of like the evos being constantly asked to explain the beginning of life, when they want to explain how life evolves after it already exists.
It's apparently the evos who want to keep bringing up religion in this context.
Why limit it to the evos? Why wouldn't a church-going Christian ask the same questions? If you believe in God, and your belief extends to knowing that He created everything, then of course everything is designed, and it's designed by God, so what is ID good for?
The question is: Are there characteristics in life forms which appear to have been the result of intelligence? ID advocates have developed some fairly sophisticated arguments in favor of this proposition, such as irreducible complexity.
I think that Behe (irreducible complexity) and Dembski (specified complexity) are barking up the wrong tree with this idea. Human design (which the only design we can be certain of) tends toward irreducible simplicity. "Simplify and add lightness" is a motto of aircraft designers. "KISS" also has its adherents. ;)
So the evo's, for the most part, are treating ID as being about God and not taking the question seriously, presumably because they are in most cases committed atheists.
If you take ID at face value, AND you assume that it's NOT about God, then the designer's NOT God. How is that better?
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.