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.
You are utterly unfamiliar with what evolutionists claim. Your posts relentlessly attack positions which were never held by Darwin or anyone since.
Listen "son" this is precisely what you did.
Oh? Where? Quote me. Or retract your idiotic charge. Or just go away and leave the conversation to those with better reading comprehension.
Your analogy of homology is effete and untenable.
I didn't say it was an "analogy of homology", you dolt, I said "they are not homologous, they are analogous". Learn to read.
As for my point being "effete and untenable", you seem to have "forgotten" to explain why and where, nor did you remember to provide supporting evidence for your view. Next, you'll probably just call me a poo-poo head.
You sir, are an idiot.
Hmm, not quite "poo-poo head", but close enough.
Hey, *I'm* not the one who could mistake my clear statements about analogous structures for a claim that they were "inherited from a common ancestor", especially when I very specifically called the marsupial placenta an "evolutionary dead-end".
In order to correctly judge the intelligence of my posts, it's necessary for you to actually understand them first (not necessarily agree with them, but *understand* what I've said). You grossly misunderstood the point of my examples, and misread them as something else entirely. If the result looks "idiotic", I submit that the problem may not be on *my* end.
Now go ahead and write me off with #213 if you wish.
With pleasure.
Some debate.
Well sure, after you reduce it to sentence fragments, cut out the actual points, and pretend they weren't there so you don't have to address them. Is this your usual level of "honest debate"?
From what I've seen, unfortunately, it is.
The best I can do is suggest that you reread my post. No particular reason, though, that it should sink in the second time.
I understood it just fine. It was an attempt to drag the topic off in nine different directions, none of which had specific bearing on the particular issue I was discussing with gore3000, for reasons which I explained to you in terms that even you should be able to understand. I suppose that's why you snipped them and reduced them to the dishonest condensation you "quoted" above -- so much easier to use scissors than attempt a rebuttal, eh?
I further understood that your post made it abundantly clear that you were fuzzy on the actual argument put forth in post #378, leading you to identify irrelevant topics as alleged "holes". This, again, was explained to you in my post, and again probably explains why you whipped out the scissors instead of dealing with it squarely.
I remain underwhelmed.
If you're unhappy with the level of our discussion, perhaps you might want to ponder which side is engaging in actual rebuttals, and which side is answering his own questions and running away from counterpoints.
I ended my last post with:
I do have answers for your tangential questions, but this is not the time to deal with them. One thing at a time. However, I can't say that I'm all that confident that you would even benefit from the answers, since the way that you chose to "answer" all of your own questions indicates that you're not interested in learning, you're just interested in hearing yourself talk. Any answers contrary to the ones you already think you "know" will likely bounce off your forehead with a sharp "ping".Clearly, I have my answer.Convince me that's not the case and perhaps we'll talk.
Nah, the more the merrier.
And frankly I don't have enough free time to do this entirely single-handedly.
[I wrote:] "Not a "single evolutionist writer", eh?"
Correct.
Incorrect, I gave you several relevant books (out of hundreds, not to mention thousands of smaller works and research papers). Try reading them.
The examples you give are of bones which have absolutely nothing to do with the transformation of the reproductive system which is what is under discussion.
Wow, where do I start on your misconceptions?
You stated, specifically, and I quote, that there is not 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".
Specifically, yes, many have. Your statement that none have demonstrates remarkable ignorance (not to mention *arrogant* ignorance, since you didn't even bother to double-check your claim before making it).
And this couldn't have been a request for egg-to-mammalian-placental transformations, since those took place roughly 90 million years *after* mammals became mammals. The reptile-to-mammal transition was another thing (and epoch) entirely.
Are you *sure* you have any idea what you're talking about?
Furthermore, yes, the books in question *do* indeed deal with more than just "bones", they get into the issues of changing methods of birth.
Perhaps if you bothered to *read* something on the topic before you spout off, you wouldn't keep making a fool of yourself.
Your shark examples show quite well why this is not a valid method.
Why *what* is not a "valid method"? Try to remain coherent.
In sharks, with similar body plans we have some which reproduce by eggs, some by a placental like system in late development and some that cannibalize other young for nutrition.
So far so good. But then you go flying off into the sky with:
This proves quite well that fossils cannot answer the big questions of evolution,
Um, *what* "proves quite well" that fossils can't answer *which* "big questions" of evolution?
Sharks which have various types of birth "prove" that fossils don't have certain answers? Your train of thought appears to have become derailed.
Remember, if you must drink, don't post.
certainly not those being discussed here.
On the contrary, lucky fossil finds can demonstrate, for example, which species actually laid eggs which hatch externally (by finding a brooding mother on a fossilized nest of eggs), which nurtured the embryo internally (by finding a fossilized female with an imbedded semi-developed embryo in its abdomen), an almost fully developed embryo pretty much guarantees the presence of a placenta, and so on. Even more run-of-the-mill fossils reveal much, for example the size of the pelvic opening indicates whether they likely gave birth to full-size offspring (implying a placenta), or necessarily could only produce eggs or early-term offspring (because of a small pelvic opening). Etc. etc.
I repeat -- are you sure you know anything about this topic?
There is some background information in this online commentary.
The English translation for this passage is very weak, for in the Greek the phrase "they might have it" translates as a "possession" or "to hold fast"...hardly a "maybe" or a turn of fate, but an absolute certainty.
I agree with that. One of my favorite background scholars is William Barclay, who's on the liberal side but has great insights. In reference to this life he says the Greek phrase means to have a "superabundance of a thing."
Yet the Faithful are being tortured and murdered globally by Muslim extremists, small children are abused and either murdered or maimed for life to satisfy pedophiliacs, and still other children grow up in dysfunctional homes where their emotions are permanently damaged.
That's not the life Jesus promised in John 10:10. First, Jesus is talking about a life for Christians - those who follow the good shepard [Jesus]. Not everybody falls under this category so we need to be careful how we apply it.
The current context really starts in verse 1, where Jesus never promised a life where Christians are free from torture, murder and abuse. What he does say here is that Jesus is the passageway, not a protector from evil. There are other verses that support the protection Christians have in God as far as trials are concerned or what He allows to happen. John 10:10 does not support a life free from pain and suffering. Just look at the life of the apostles - they understood what they were in for, and died for it.
This passage is more along the lines of Jesus being the way, truth and life (John 14:6), and that nobody gets to the father except through Him. Jesus is saying he is the gate to heaven, and those who try to get to the flock by climbing in some other way are not the way to heaven. Those who do try to get to the flock without using the gate are theives and robbers who only come to steal, kill and destroy.
Jesus said he gives a superabundance of life. That is, a life that overflows. Eternal life.
The above is garbage since fossils do not show a placenta
The study didn't rely on fossils, try again... I repeat, the first requisite to being able to attempt to rebut something is to first *understand* it properly.
and there is no DNA to make such a comparison.
The researchers *did* use DNA to make the comparison. Learn to read.
What we do have are live specimens with and without a placenta.
And some with *partially developed* placentas. Is there some reason you "forgot" to consider the significance of that?
The problem is that since both examples are alive NOW it is only an evolutionist assumption that leads to the conclusion that those without a placenta came before those with one.
You totally misunderstand the point of the study, but oh well.
In addition because there is no way at all to tell what the DNA of any species was a million years ago or a hundred million years ago, there is absolutely no way to calibrate this so called 'clock'.
There are many ways, actually. Try reading the literature.
There are more problems with the molecular clock such as that different DNA tests give different cladistic diagrams
Actually, the results are remarkably consistent and the causes of the few anomalies are pretty well understood.
and the fact that evolution assumes that all species are continually being changed by mutations
No, actually, it doesn't. Why don't you learn something about evolution before you attempt to debate it?
which means that according to evolutionist assumptions a human and lizard have undergone as many years of mutations as each other since the supposed descent from fish.
But not necessarily as many retained mutations. You seem pretty unclear on the basics...
Thus any study that claims to use a molecular clock is dishonest and absolute nonsense.
Your arguments are flawed, therefore your conclusion is faulty.
You realize that this comment will now be used post facto to justify earlier wild accusations....
One could just as (illogically) claim the same about the fields of physics, chemistry, engineering, electronics, etc. etc. -- and just as wrongly.
No need to get defensive. If you don't understand, consult a dictionary.
What does you theory do?
Your theory is not exempt from the rules of logic. Your naturalist presuppositions are logically bankrupt. You or any other darwinist on this thread has failed to address the foundational problems and I don't need to guess that it is because you are incapable. If you have any sort of naturalistic explanations for your evolutionary miracles, I would be interested in hearing them.
Music theory has little to say on the origin of air
I think you may be in over your head here. Let me explain. Regarding only one of the materialistic miracles, the existence of matter can only be explained in 3 ways. Two of the three ways defy logic.
Explanation One
1: Matter created it self. I've already explained that self-creation is a logical absurdity. Check any intro-to-philosophy to verify that. It is absurd because something must exist in order for it to create itself.
Explanation Two
2:) Matter has always existed. This is also absurd. We know of no physical laws that allow for anything material in this universe to exist eternally. Even secular cosmologists agree that time began with the Big Bang. If time began with the Big Bang, nothing, therefore, can be eternal. One typically lame objection is that matter came from another universe. If matter came from another universe, then there is a reality outside our universe which is in the favor of the theist. And, it should be pointed out, that the existence of another universe would destroy the materialistic presuppositions necessary for naturalism. Yet another problem with this idea is that assigning the origin of this universe to that of another universe is called an infinite regression which, of course, is also logically absurd and never does deal with the issue of the origin of matter.
Explanation Three
3: The third option is that matter was created. This option is not only logical, it is the best explanation of all and solves the difficulties of the first two explanations. This is the only option that has some evidence in its favor. Unfortunately, evolutionists evidence that supports their worldview and reject evidence that doesn't fit.
if you don't want your brain // family sterilized // plamasized - - -
the shield between state and TALIBAN--religion(evolution/atheism) is gone .. .. ..
this is .. .. .. chernobyl - - - radiation // brain virus // poisoning .. .. ..
NUCLEAR SOCIAL - - - ALIEN ANTARTICA // AMERICA!!
Really? Why so?
2:) Matter has always existed. This is also absurd.
Really? Why so?
3: The third option is that matter was created.
Since you think you are being logical, doesn't that idea logically lead to the question of who created it and where such creators came from? Do I need to mention "turtles all the way down"?
Aw man, *I* wanted to do that! Hmph!
At least allow me to append spontaneous creation and annihilation of virtual particle pairs as a preemptive counter to whatever "logical justification" is presented for point #1.
They aren't good, but they wear everyone down. Same people, same stuff, thread after thread. Trolling for suckers.
"...variation, heredity, and reproductive success are the three legs of biology" should read "...variation, heredity, and reproductive success are the three legs of the theory of evolution"
Sorry about the confusion.
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.