Refuting Darwinism, point by point

EVOLUTION WATCH Refuting Darwinism, point by point Author's new book presents case against theory in just 83 pages

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I suspect that Kierkegaard's status as the intellectual father of existentialism hinders such an acceptance....

I suspect it is a desire to find observations to verify a stipulated conclusion--a desire to have it both ways, both to accept the validity of reason and the senses but also to accept predetermined beliefs obtained without need of those faculties.

I think Kierkegaard can provide a nice solution by allowing people to objectively observe then conclude (rather than the other way around) and still hold tight to whatever mystical beliefs they wish to stipulate. It provides a kind of epistemological separation of the real and the mystical so that people can still rationally function in this world.

(And it eliminates the need for all these silly, misguided, and contorted arguments.)

Your argument is simply that the volume of the universe is infinite.

If the universe were infinite, it could not expand, as you noted. I do not hold that the universe is infinite.

The argument of a time before the big bang is simply that time is infinite

You are exactly right and I have to chuckle when cosmologists say, "Before the Big Bang there was no time." Time as we know it, linear time, is finite. I do not argue that there is not another kind of time outside the universe. God Himself is beyond the temporal and has demonstrated this in various ways including the recording of specific prophecies fulfilled hundreds or even thousands of years later.

than what do you suppose separates the universe from that thing?

This is a problem for which your cosmologists are attempting to create a theory. The question is "what happens when you leave space if indeed we can leave space?" But the answer to your question is, at this point, "space." Since the universe is expanding at nearly the speed of light, and since we do not have the technology to reach or exceed that speed, space is indeed the barrier.

The universe is, *by definition*, all that exists.

Yes, when we speak of the temporal reality in which we exist we can properly use that definition. But to say there is no other realm of existence because the universe is all that exists is to exhibit the fallacy of equivocation. The definition of universe cannot change in the same argument from:

1) This physical, temporal realm of existence
-to-
2) All realms of existence.

If you insist on the materialist presupposition that this is the only realm of existence, you remove your a priori supposition of the eternal existence of matter. Can you shape reality with only words? If I define "coffee cup" as something that can only hold coffee will it not still be able to hold tea or mercury or sand?

I don't know what you mean here by "postulate", but an idea is not invalidated simply by raising questions

We agree. My response was to your objection that a solution might raise more questions than it answered.

The trouble with the creationist view is that it not only ultimately doesn't explain anything (except to say "God makes it happen")

I was determined to not be moved off of the subject. Since you seem to have the ability to think, I'll respond.

If it is as you say, that the creationist view explains nothing and hides behind God for explanations, then what threat could it possibly be to evolution? Why don't the evolutionists simply grind creationism into the dust of history with their logic and proof? Something evolutionists either won't believe or won't admit is that creationists have the same evidence evolutionists have for the formation of theories regarding the origin of the earth and of life. It is the interpretation of the evidence that differs. It is true we have slightly less evidence than you do. That is primarily because we don't need to manufacture evidence to support our view; No Nebraska man, no Piltdown man, no Lucy.

Many evolutionary theories at least attempt to explain observations within the realm of the observable universe.

No, they most definitely do not, as is illustrated on this thread. When the evos encounter a brick wall, they shrug it off and move on. Why is it you are the only one willing to even think about the problem of the origin of matter? I don't believe the average evo has ever given any thought to the presuppositions underlying the worldview necessary to support darwinism.

If the universe were infinite, it could not expand, as you noted

That's not exactly what I wrote. The universe could be infinite, with matter still spreading out within it. This could also explain what is observed.

exhibit the fallacy of equivocation

You can assume that I am not exhibiting this fallacy and reinterpret from there. If you suppose some other "realm of existence" that should properly be encompassed by the term "universe". I see no reason to EVER change the definition of "universe" from encompassing everything. To do so would begin a proliferation of words by attempting to define ever encompassing notions of existence--perhaps "superuniverse", or "metauniverse". That would indeed leave us susceptible to the fallacy of equivocation. Let's not do the corruption of the language that so many others have done but instead stick with the original definition. If something exists, it is part of the universe. This is true by definition, not by argument or observation.

supposition of the eternal existence of matter

If the big bang theory is true, then matter has existed for all time.

If something exists, it is part of the universe. This is true by definition, not by argument or observation.

Then you have created reality by definition. That is fine for your own universe but reality itself exists apart from the will of man.

You have demonstrated well the bias of the materialist. The materialist lives in a room and refuses to look out the window. It is not that there is no evidence for a reality beyond the universe, it is not that the laws of logic are violated, it is a simple refusal to believe. The argument that can persuade a brittle materialist does not exist because he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality.

That, of course, is your choice. But that choice robs you of the ability to point the finger at creationists and accuse them of intellectual stubbornness; it is hypocrisy. It also causes your "scientific" air of superiority to evaporate; you aren't interested in truth, only the support of your baseless suppositions.

Finally, it exposes the defenders of darwin to be volitional rather than thoughtful; dishonest rather than truthful; unscientific rather than scientific, biased rather than fair.

It means you lost the argument.

If the big bang theory is true, then matter has existed for all time.

Of course matter has existed for all time. Who would argue against that? Both views believe time began with the beginning of the universe. It is the origin of matter that you cannot (will not?) explain.

Why don't the evolutionists simply grind creationism into the dust of history with their logic and proof?

A belief doesn't necessarily die simply because it is incompatible with reason or observation. In fact, it is often the opposite. It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation. The belief is the axiom, the undeniable truth to which interpretations of observations must be made compatible with.

That is primarily because we don't need to manufacture evidence to support our view

Well, you need to study your opponents. Contemporary evolutionary theories that I am familiar with don't need to rely on Piltdown man or any other manufactured evidence. Even Darwin's theories, as primitive as they may have been, were quite reasonable attempts to explain meticulous real world observations.

Something evolutionists either won't believe or won't admit is that creationists have the same evidence evolutionists have for the formation of theories regarding the origin of the earth and of life.

Maybe I have been the victim of only reading ideas from some black sheep of the creationist movement, but repeatedly I read things such as false interpretations of the laws of thermodynamics that are like neon signs flashing "absurdity".

Even without all the absurd or contorted particulars, I am asked to accept that, given the world as I can observe it, it is more likely that multiple complex species magically popped into existence like a mammoth David Copperfield special than that there was some sort of continuum from the formation of the solar system to earth's present state.

Actually some posters on this thread have done a reasonable job of explaining the science of evolutionary theories. If you think the theories as described here go outside the realm of reality, I suggest you read a contemporary textbook on the matter. As far as brick walls, they result (in modern theories that are privy to them) in unsubstantiated explanations rather than contradictions. The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science. The process of fixed unfalsifiable conclusions followed by interpretations tailored to fit them is not.

Then you have created reality by definition.

This is rediculous, and disappointing. I have done nothing but define a word. I could just as well have created a new word called, say "poutriverse" and defined "poutriverse" = "all that exists". Fortunately a word already exists, it is called "universe".

Or, are you suggesting that it is impossible to have a word that means "all that exists"?

It is not that there is no evidence for a reality beyond the universe, it is not that the laws of logic are violated, it is a simple refusal to believe. The argument that can persuade a brittle materialist does not exist because he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality.

What is disappointing is that my previous post was so meticulously clear. Perhaps you didn't read it. If you don't want to except the definition of "universe" I gave then simply say so.

However, in light of your incapacity to manage word definitions, let me simply say that all you are doing by using words like "reality beyond the universe" is saying that there are properties or qualities of the universe that are different than those we observe.

he refuses to consider anything that does not conform to his comfortable self-centered reality

What you mean is that you somehow know of things that are not observable. Please explain how you then came to know them. Explain why I can't with equal legitimacy claim that there is a 2D realm of Mandarin-speaking Elvis's flying upside down on winged donkeys.

That, of course, is your choice.

It is my choice not to claim to know things that I cannot know.

It is the origin of matter that you cannot (will not?) explain.

"Origin"? There is no origin if it has always existed. And I thought you were beyond the contradiction of a time before time.

You don't realize that you believe in an infinite universe containing unobservable properties that are incomprehensibly different from those properties we do observe, and yet are knowable.

A belief doesn't necessarily die simply because it is incompatible with reason or observation.

Exactly, which is why getting you guys to think about it is like pulling teeth. Let me state evolution's vitamin deficiency in another way: If evolution is on such a sound foundation, why do defenders have convulsions at the thought of allowing criticism? If you fear criticism, you have something to hide. Creation doesn't fear criticism nor does it demand the removal of the evolutionary theory from schools. Darwinists, however, demand a government-funded monopoly. That's logical, fair, balanced and self-confident isn't it? No! It is the manifest paranoia of the darwinists.

It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation.

You reveal a paucity of knowledge regarding religion. Some religion is superstitious. Darwinism is also superstitious. Even Hume said it was reasonable to believe in a Creator. It is the materialistic foundation of darwinism that is impervious to reason. I mean no personal insult or attack when I say that you are aiding the illustration of that imperviousness. You giving non-answers to a core question.

Contemporary evolutionary theories that I am familiar with don't need to rely on Piltdown man or any other manufactured evidence.

Oh? How about manufactured flying dinosaur fossils? How about Lucy? I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.

The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science.

Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.

If evolution is on such a sound foundation, why do defenders have convulsions at the thought of allowing criticism?

I didn't know evolutionists feared criticism. I'll ask one next time I see one. As scientists I would hope they would be masters at producing criticism. In fact, the biological literature is full of criticisms, which is why evolutionary science has changed so much, and branched out, over the years.

Aside from evolutionists, anyone who values reason or simple truth may very well have convulsions at efforts to teach schoolchildren that the second law of thermodynamics means that only God can increase complexity.

I didn't know that "Darwinism" had an economic or political branch. I'll have to go back to Darwin's writings to see if I can find that. What are they doing advocating government monopolies? Perhaps you are thinking of a subset of Darwinists who also happen to be collectivists?

Some religion is superstitious. Darwinism is also superstitious.

What religion is not supersititious? What about Darwinism is superstitious?

I mean no personal insult or attack when I say that you are aiding the illustration of that imperviousness. You giving non-answers to a core question.

How so?

Oh? How about manufactured flying dinosaur fossils? How about Lucy? I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.

How do contemporary evolutionary theories depend on these?

The process of observation and reinterpretation is the way of science.

Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.

And creationists can conceive of empirical data that would disprove the existence of God? That is, the part of their theory requiring God's existence is falsifiable?

Well, erase for a moment, for the sake of argument, all you think you know about how people currently conceive evolutionary theories. Can you conceive of a rational way of tentatively explaining the existing biological and fossil evidence without the need of a deliberate intervention?

This is rediculous, and disappointing. I have done nothing but define a word.

I beg your pardon.
We are not talking about a word but the concept the word represents.
You have limited reality to suit your worldview, which was my original contention: Philosophical materialists are stuck in their tiny materialistic mental box. They won't look out the window, not because there is nothing out there but because it makes them uncomfortable.

Or, are you suggesting that it is impossible to have a word that means "all that exists"?

Since you are requiring that I break down your logic to show the flaws, I must assume you have had no training in logic whatsoever. If you have had training in logic, you are either ignoring its laws or have forgotten them.

Your syllogism:

Major premise:
The universe is all that there is.

Minor premise:
If something were outside the universe it could not be part of the universe.

Conclusion:
Therefore something outside the universe cannot exist.

This fallacy is called Petitio Principii or "begging the question," which is assuming the thing you are trying to prove. It is the most basic of fallacies.

What you mean is that you somehow know of things that are not observable. Please explain how you then came to know them.

Evolution is almost composed exclusively of elements that are not observable! Shame beavus! Was I mistaken when I gave you credit for thinking?

Do you know of things you cannot observe? The question absolutely absurd, hypocritical, and sophomoric. Everyone knows things they cannot observe! If you want a lesson in the theory of knowlege, I charge $105 an hour.

It is amazing to me that I so often have to give the high-brow evolutionists lessons in elementary logic. You people are supposed to be the enlightened ones yet you mock us if our vocabulary exceeds 800 words.

Explain why I can't with equal legitimacy claim that there is a 2D realm of Mandarin-speaking Elvis's flying upside down on winged donkeys.

You can. Here's another lesson in logic for free: The burden of proof is on the new idea.

You are certainly free to assert anything but you should be able to back it up. I have given good reasons to believe why there is a reality outside of our physical universe. You can only offer the lame and trampled excuse that if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist. Any 7th-grader of average intelligence who hasn't been force-fed darwinism through the elementary grades will be able to discern which position is superior. Deny it till you turn blue, but please offer some sort of rational basis.

"Origin"? There is no origin if it has always existed.

No kidding. The burden of proof is on you to show or at least provide some logic that indicates why matter is eternal.

You don't realize that you believe in an infinite universe containing unobservable properties that are incomprehensibly different from those properties we do observe, and yet are knowable.

Of course I understand the argument I put forth. I admit some of the properties are unobservable. Most of evolution's claims are unobservable. If the unobservable element makes it impossible, then evolution is impossible as well. The properties are not incomprehensibly different.

You see, beavus, your side tries to explain all the impossibilities of the Big Bang by telling us the laws of physics were different then. How convenient! That is no less intellectually cowardly than your claim that we hide behind God.

It does not wash, beavus, to say that
dirt is eternal = science
God is eternal = superstition

frog -> prince = fairy tale
frog + time -> prince = science.

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.