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.
Okay, but why ask *me*?
If you pack 1.44MB of information on a 3.5 in floppy disk, can you transfer that information wirelessly to another computer or floppy disk?
Of course.
Science describes something that is real but has no mass as eternal.
No, actually, it doesn't, but thanks for playing.
The uniqueness of individual people is based on their unique eternal information (Spirit).
I think it's grossly misleading to call personality "Spirit", but yeah, I'll agree that it's in essence "software", information-based.
Why, in the face of the evidence, is it so hard to believe we can be transferred "wirelessly" from here to heaven or hell when we die?
Because I've not seen any convincing evidence for either heaven or hell. Similarly, I could ask you:
Why, in the face of the evidence, is it so hard to believe we can be transferred "wirelessly" from here to tape backup in Bill Gates' closet when we die?(Actually, someday I think that *will* likely be possible...)
When they understand that the eternal information (Spirit) for a life is contained in the embryo, at the point of conception, maybe then they will know why we fight like zealots to protect those children.
I don't get it -- if their eternal essence doesn't perish after all, what's the fuss over when/whether someone dies at all? They're already "backed up". I don't mind deleting a file from my disk if the data is available somewhere else. Why not then say, "abortion is no big deal, the little guys are just sent to Jesus sooner, hallelujah".
Are you sure you've thought through your own argument?
We have been programmed to have a relationship with God, accept Jesus and turn on your wireless transmitter.
Um....
Beware overstrained analogies... Besides being likely erroneous, they sound really goofy.
Also, you can add snakes to the egg-laying/live-young side as well as sharks. I'm sure there are other such groups.
I would add that the monotremes show an obvious (and, generally, bypassed) method of nuturing young between the egg-laying and placental-mammal stages as they include both egg laying and an external development pouch. And marsupials then add an internal embryo instead of egg laying. Obviously, evolutionary history has tried several methods and we extant species are the most robust survivors.
Oops.
Huh?
If I populate an island with 100 mares and 100 stallions of different breeds, and come back many years later, I would expect to see more than 200 horses. If I do the same thing with 100 male donkeys and 100 mares (or vice versa), I will find no equids after the last mule dies.
Therefore, by any useful definition, horses and donkeys (and zebras, etc) are different species.
1) He will brazen away your demolition of his argument with a few blue paragraphs of non sequitur spew, andSupplimentary predictions:
2) he will reuse his original argument without modification on thread after thread.
3) MichaelMichelangelo will sooner or later again mention how everyone ignores gore's demolitions of evolution, and
4) All of the other creos will politely congratulate gore from time to time for "raising some good points."
I'm not sure where this came from, but "random mutations" kind of implies "anything can happen." In any case, I don't recall anyone hanging their hat on random mutations as the be-all and end-all of evolutionary mechanisms.
ID is scientific theory which says life shows evidence of having been designed period. Either life shows evidence of design or it doesn't.
But that's not what they talk about. They declare that something couldn't have evolved because it's too complex, so therefore it must have been designed. They don't offer evidence of design, design is their fallback position.
Irreducible complexity doesn't refer to the thought processes of the designer, so I don't know what you're talking about there.
I was talking about the concept of design when it involves structures that have physical functions. A perfect designer would make a design as optimally functional as possible (the hallmark of which would be uncluttered simplicity). Most designs found in nature are adequate, not optimal.
Either life shows evidence of design or it doesn't. The atheist evos say that it leads inevitably to the idea that there is a God (True). They then use that as a basis for immediately dismissing the entire idea. This is not a scientific basis however, it is their atheist philosophy.
You don't think God is outside of science?
Sure there is. New, beneficial genetic information arises according to known scenarios. In fact, evolutionary mechanisms can produce "irreducibly complex" systems. The main mechanism for adding new genes is the duplication mutation.
Monotremes (platypus, echidna) are also interesting because they have no teats (ok, "nipples"). After their mammary glands excrete the milk, it pretty much just "sweats" out of the skin. This is yet another interesting "transition" example of something that's partway between how modern mammals do something and how their presumed pre-mammal ancestors did it. So there's no need to ask which developed first, the nipple or the milk, or how one could be useful without the other.
Thank you for responding. I was just trying to convey some spiritual concepts in layman’s terms. I don't mind sounding a little goofy on occasion if people possibly will think outside of their normal comfort zones.
Presuppositions can limit us so, after all the socialist school system, many of us have been educated by, tends to encourage groupthink. Limit the theories that the children are exposed to which conveniently pooh poohs the pursuit of truth wherever it may turn up.
Provocatively, quantum physics brushes against many metaphysical ideas. Concepts like multiple dimensions. Heaven and hell may not be as wild an idea as prior thought by science. Please consider that these ideas are well within the realm of scientific plausibility.
I don't get it -- if their eternal essence doesn't perish after all, what's the fuss over when/whether someone dies at all? They're already "backed up". I don't mind deleting a file from my disk if the data is available somewhere else. Why not then say, "abortion is no big deal, the little guys are just sent to Jesus sooner, hallelujah".
Would you like someone to force you to die, or would you rather be able to grow and learn.
One of the more foundational concepts of Christian theology is free will. Abortion is a violation of an individual’s opportunity to exercise their God given free will. He created us with the potential to choose to love Him and these children loose the opportunity to make that choice.
This is a new claim. I have never heard the word species used to mean family (in the biological sense) except by you. Perhaps you could give us some citations wherein this usage is common.
Oh, but didn't you know...the poster in question is of the opinion that scientific journals aren't actually read by subscribers. Yes, I think I remember reading such a statement from him not too very long ago.
Excellent post, btw.
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.