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.
Yup, real non sequitur, I directly addressed the issue and showed exactly why you cannot find a single evolutionist writer that will deal with the question of the scientific facts about how a reptile could ever have transformed into a mammal. Facts beat rhetoric every time and your side does not have any facts.
Nope, that's why I said he slip with Darwinism, not evolution. He knew that evolution was phony, he just wanted to stay on the gravy train.
Interesting. Seems atheists, more than Prolifers, should hold life to be precious because to the atheist, that is all there is.
Are we talking about Steven J. Gould? The foremost popularizer of evolutionary theories of our time?
They would furthermore be advised to examine various members of the animal kingdom to see whether any "in-between" stages *already* existed to prove/disprove the workability of "stepping-stone" transitions. Only then could they hope to discuss the topic with any degree of believability and/or assurance that their points bore any passing resemblance to actual biology and/or animal life cycles.
Yes. Sharks. Some lay eggs, some give live births and some propagate themselves with what appear to be intermediate means.
Now, pay attention. We are going to ask scientific questions, questions you did not answer.
Is it true that many if not most species of sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years? Well, yes it is. If that is so, where is the vaunted Darwinian change?
And did egg-layers transition into live-birthers? Or the reverse? How do you know? What is the evidence? They clearly are all currently viable, so which of the 3 is the product of survival advantage? Sort of embarrassing to be asked these questions, isn't it? Particularly since you don't have the answers. But take heart. Neither does anyone else. And hang in there, there's more.
Whichever way the transformation occurred, which is wholly speculative at this point, what was the mechanism?. Chance? You allude to chance as the "reason" when you point to lengthy periods of time between supposed events. Sorry, Wrong Answer. Science explains. "Chance" explains nothing. It is anti-science. Well then, how about mutation? Sorry Again. Mutation has never been shown, in the laboratory, in the wild or in the fossil record to be anything but destructive. When selectively bred into monsters in the laboratory then left to their own devices, fruit flies rapidly gravitate back toward the norm in succeeding generations. There has not been shown to be a credible mechanism, only rhetoric. I do not maintain that it does not exist, only that it has not been shown. But it is science's duty, biology's duty, to tell us what it is. Or it ain't science.
Let's talk a little more about homology, structural similarities. Seems widely varying species have been known for centuries to exhibit surprisingly similar organic structures, which would seem to be impossible if Darwinian Evolution looks anything like a tree. I refer you to Icons of Evolution by Johathan Wells. To quote you back to yourself: OOPS!
You have not shown us, Dan. When someone says to the physicists "Show me", they go out a produce an atomic bomb and the laser. Tough to argue with that. Ask the same question of the Evolutionists and you get the Atheist First Dawkins and the Rhetorician Gould who drones on about magisteria.
But the Evol Claque is ecstatic, back slapping and shouting -- I think I even saw Patick on a table in the center of the room waving his hands. Well, they ain't happy about the science because there isn't any. I conclude that they simply enjoy bashing "Creationists", defined as anyone who would dare to question their pet "theory", and whacking on gore3000. For all the pretty pictures and the volume of rhetoric, Dan, I'm underwhelmed.
Actually, the placental invention of live birth comes well after reptiles became mammals. See also, egg-laying mammals and marsupials. Dan Day's earlier post to you explains the point nicely, and yet you still don't get it. (You, of all people! Who'd have thought?) It's almost a change of subject to suddenly, after all the dumb-dumbing about placentalism being impossible to evolve, announce that reptile-mammal transition is the topic.
The reptile-mammal transition is particularly visible in the fossil record. The diagnostic feature for mammals isn't placentalism (too late), live birth (still too late), warm-bloodedness (too early), or even the eponymous mammary glands (soft tissue, seldom or never fossilized) but a one-part lower jaw and the signature mammalian earbone configuration. Evolutionist writers and the fossil record itself have plenty to say on the subject, as has been linked for you many times over the past two years. You simply see nothing and remember nothing.
You may have skimmed my posts, but you have no idea of their content. You aren't even in the ballpark on this one, bud.
Not only am I not bashing religion, but I have no hatred for it - even f.Christian gets this part of my posts and tries to offer some solutions. So please, stuff it.
I am always amazed at Christians being so fervid to preserve life, no matter how wretched. Almost seems like they think death is the end. Are they AFRAID TO DIE?
So9
Nonsense. It is the very heart of quantum theory. You know, the funny rules that define the workings of the semiconductors that make up the computer you are using.
In exactly the same way chance is the heart of punctuated equilibrium evolution. Trying to trash Darwinian Evolution is about as useful as arguing about phlogeston. while our understanding of the details has improved, the basis of Physics or of Evolution remain valid.
SO9
Maybe they think they are emulating Jesus. It's just that they consider Jesus to be a hateful calumnious dolt.
I noticed that this thread has gone in a number of different directions; is there something in particular I should be researching?
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.