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.
Sorry, that's not correct. Medved was against evolution.
I'm not going to butt heads with you. If you refuse to understand my very simple and uncontroversial point that a single word can be used to represent the concept "all that exists" then I don't see how I can hold a worthwhile argument with you. The fact that I spell that word "universe" leaves us only an argument of semantics and does not even begin to challenge any point of view you have yet to make. Your misconstrued syllogism was anticipated and preempted by my earlier post.
If you believe that there are concepts for which no word can be made to represent, then we will simply have to disagree.
I'm sure you are responding to someone in your posts but as you are attributing alliances and beliefs to me that aren't mine, you are not responding to me. Do the courtesy of responding to ME and we can continue the discussion. If you simply want a sounding board then post to yourself.
It's the only mechanism I've ever heard of for Darwinian evolution. Do you have an example of an evolutionist scenario which did not involve mutations?
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.
No they declare that it's irreducibly complex. That means that if you take away one part, the whole thing can't function. Evolutionary theory says that a large number of random mutations over long periods of time cause gradual changes in organisms. This poses a problem where there is a mechanism in a life form, like the bacterial flagellum, that is irreducibly complex. It has a number of distinct parts. I believe the link you supplied discussed this. In order for a mutation to be carried over from one generation to the next, it has to be beneficial in some way. That's how the entire species eventually gets the mutation. Perhaps the bacteria couldn't even have survived without it, but I'm not sure about that. It's extremely difficult to see how the flagellum could have been the result of random mutations. That's why the flagellum appears to be something where all the parts were put into place simultaneously, as would be the case if something were designed. That's why some evolutionists have proposed that during this long change period, the partly formed flagellum performed some other unknown funcion, so that it was retained from generation to generation, until it was completely formed, even though there's no evidence for it, and they can't say what this other function was. They don't seem to feel they need to provide that information.
You don't think God is outside of science?
He is outside of science, but the evidence of design isn't. One doesn't need to provide scientific evidence of God's existence to say things show evidence of design.
Ouch! There's a scam. Good screening process though, as anyone dim enough to pay $105/hr for epistemology lessons is probably too dim to scrutinize the nonsense he's fed.
I'm sure that the fact that you think you do makes the evolutionists chuckle as much as does me.
The first coherent post I've seen you make. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Really? I'll have to see if I can find someone on my side and ask them if that is true. Since you know more about me than I do, maybe you can tell me if I believe the big bang theory?
Unfortunately, when you write in code no one knows what the hell you're talking about.
If I were you, I'd risk suspension.
Whew! Good thing I don't say that then, huh?
I'm sure that the fact that you think you do makes the evolutionists chuckle as much as does me.
You must demonstrate your understanding of logic by putting it in practice. When logic puts the full nelson on your argument, pretending it's nonsense does not release the hold.
Demonstrate your proficiency in logikos by answering my questions rather than avoiding them. Answer the question of how matter could be eternal. I submit that you not only cannot give a logical explantion but that you will likely avoid the question as you have previously.
The lurkers are watching. So give it another try.
Matter: is it
eternal
or
created?
State your evidence.
You have stated that it has always existed but you were not entirely clear as to whether it existed before the Big Bang or was created by the Big Bang. You, believing that time began with the BB cannot logically believe it existed before the beginning of time. You've had a full day to answer this question. How much more time do you need? The lurkers are waiting for your answer.
Your choice, Herr Presumptio. If you change your mind again, and want discussion, you know what to do.
Actually, I think I deserve some credit in this matter. I am not completely without training in this area, you know.
It is a problem, but processes to explain it, even if necessarily lacking in evidence (as you might expect with a continuum), are not inconceivable. For one thing you said it has to be beneficial in some way. Why would you think that? All that is required is that the lifeform with that property survive and reproduce. This can happen without the property being beneficial. I know of a guy with Huntington's disease. He reproduced and passed on the trait, but I fail to see how the trait confers a survival advantage.
Guess . . . who ((link)) !
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.