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.
In fact, if time began with the big bang (and presupposing that everything started with the big bang), then everything is eternal (or at least everything has always existed up to the present). Your contradiction is in simultaneously assuming both that there was and that there wasn't a "time before time". If time began with the big bang, then there can be no "before" the big bang.
How can I tell if my essence is pure?
I see. You're kinda busy right now. Let's let the lurkers have another look at the questions you're unwilling or unable to 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?
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 and 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.
And sometimes you even get the underwhelming Dan Day.
Times is hard, Dan. Ah but we gather at your feet to ... Nah, Phaedrus, back off, the guy's already been beat.
Your natural fluids are pure. Avoid fluoridated water, which is a plot of the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Remember the words of General Ripper: "As human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids." And above all, beware creationist women; they seek the life essence.
Do I need to avoid creationist women, or should I just deprive them of my essence?
Please, I have seen the same arguments from you dozens of times. This question is about the rerpoductive system transformation from reptiles to mammals. The bones can tell us nothing about it.
Follow the example of General Ripper:
"I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love. ... Yes a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly: loss of essence. ... I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women ... women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence."
Holy conspiracy Batman! I may not have any essence left!!
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".
Semantics again. The subject under discussion was the transformation of the reproductive system from egg laying to live bearing. Has been all along. So I did not dot the I and cross the t, shoot me. Point is that not a single evolutionist writer (or for that matter any writer) is willing to give a detailed explanation according to the scientific facts about how the reproductive system of reptiles transformed itself gradually into a live bearing system. If any had I am sure you would have quoted from it.
Perhaps if you bothered to *read* something on the topic before you spout off, you wouldn't keep making a fool of yourself.
If they exist and you have read them, why did you not use them in this discussion???????????
You wait until I'm 53 to tell me that?
It can be restored. When it's gone beyond any hope of replenishment, you will begin posting in blue font.
This is the wonderful thing about evolutionists - if something descended from another, it proves evolution. If it did not, it also proves evolution. If it is homologous it proves evolution. However, if it is homologous but does not show descent, then it is analogous and also proves evolution. In other words, heads you win, tails everyone else loses. Shows quite well that evolution is rhetoric, not science.
One thing about analogous though. Analogous proves descent. It is extremely unlikely that following an evolutionary biological path creatures as far apart as fish and mammals would have similar structures. This is proof of an intelligent designer reusing parts which have been successful in other creatures which need it. I think the example of the sharks, so closely related to each other shows design not evolution when creatures which arose at a similar time were able to develop such different reproductive systems.
Sorry, just thought I would save time.;^)
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.
It's all yours. I want to see how he refutes the Hindu idea of a continuous creation-destruction cycle of universes.
That post makes me wonder...is it possible to sap your own essence?
A drink made from rain water and grain alcohol is supposed to do the trick.....
And sometimes you get the fatuous Phaedrus who displays her petulance and ego instead of an actual argument.
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.