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.
The credit is yours, if you like. But it cuts both ways in case of a relapse.
Really?
Why. Space ant time are linked. Since "space" started with the Big Bang, so did time. (Hey! all you cosmologists out there be kind, I know this is a really lame way of putting this :-))
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.
In 1996, using the Hubble, a measurement of 68 to 78 km/sec/Mpc is what was indicated. Remember the speed of light in a vaccuum is 299,792,458 meters per second.
ROFL!
The problem is that this is your strawman. We have yet to nail down the problem of proton decay, which, if it proves to a verifiable significant factor, might mean that all matter in the universe will decay in the next 20-50 trillion years. Of course, scientists have proposed other alternatives, but you probably wouldn't recognize them.
Such a dialogue is rarely as satisfying as reading the originals and coming to your own understanding. Why don't I simply suggest that you read Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", particularly part IX, and Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"?
Did I forget to respond to this idiocy? If so, ...
First, let's mutually agree that your personal incredulity does not constitute an argument on the origin on the universe. Second, let's agree that we do not know everything there is to know about the nature of the universe or it's physical laws.
Now, let's see your conclusive argument refuting the possibility of the a continuous creation-destruction cycle of universes.
I whet my appetite on the _Prolegomena_ and got food poisoning. It was a quagmire of restatements that left me no appetite for the full Critique. Do you think I'm missing anything?
Why. Space ant time are linked. Since "space" started with the Big Bang, so did time. (Hey! all you cosmologists out there be kind, I know this is a really lame way of putting this :-))
I really don't care to discuss this again, especially on the same thread. Think about it. Ask yourself what the word "before" assumes.
ME: Answer the question of how matter could be eternal.
YOU: The problem is that this is your strawman. We have yet to nail down the problem of proton decay, which, if it proves to a verifiable significant factor, might mean that all matter in the universe will decay in the next 20-50 trillion years. Of course, scientists have proposed other alternatives, but you probably wouldn't recognize them.
What was my question? Why is matter eternal (as beavus asserts).
What was your answer? Matter may not be eternal.
Well then, if matter is not eternal, explain its origin.
Thirteen hours have elapsed and not one of you have been able to answer the question!
I thought you Darwinists wanted people to think for themselves. Think for yourself! This is a debate between two world views. Referring me to books is as useful as posting links instead of answering. I can refer you to books that refute Hume and Kant. To what end?
Certain philosophers have attempted to answer certain stubborn questions about reality. As on a test, only correct answers count.
I don't recall anyone hanging their hat on random mutations as the be-all and end-all of evolutionary mechanisms.
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?
No, but I was referring to "random mutations," which I would infer to be replication errors. I think viral-induced mutations are probably more important than replication errors. The human genome seems to be gunked up with ancient viral and bacterial genes.
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.
Well, that's Behe's claim, but irreducibility doesn't mean the complexity couldn't have evolved. It just means you don't know what the immediate precursor looked like. There may have been more parts, not fewer.
It's extremely difficult to see how the flagellum could have been the result of random mutations.
I agree, and I'm not qualified to explain how it might have happened. However, since you can't prove a negative, it boils do to opinion as to whether it could have happened or not.
You don't think God is outside of science?
He is outside of science, but the evidence of design isn't.
Behe's evidence for design is that "it couldn't have evolved." That doesn't do it for me. Your mileage may vary. :)
Alright bunghole, under risk of being led into another of your unilateral "dialogues", I'll repeat what I've said before. If matter began with the big bang, then it has always existed (up to the present). Your attempts to ask what came before, or what created, or what caused it, are all contradictions in that they assert (in the form of a question) a time before (without) time.
This is something you claim to understand but obviously do not.
With that, I'm done waiting for an answer that will never come. Good Night.
You should know better than to devote so much time to so many bags of atoms that are happy to exchange six millennia of widespread common sense for a century and half of "new science." But then, I've made the same mistake.
Nope. I am citing your failure to quote, name, cite, or give any examples from evolutionist writeres in your attempted refutations as evidence supporting my statement that no evolutionist writer has ever even tried to explain ACCORDING TO THE SCIENTIFICALLY KNOWN FACTS how reptilian egg-laying transformed itself into mammalian live bearing. Quite a different thing.
If they exist and you have read them, why did you not use them in this discussion??????????? -me-
Because I can deal with most of your silliness without leaving my chair
Nope. Insults and excuses prove nothing except that you are trying to cover up your inability to refute my statements with ad-hominems and rhetoric. You are not fooling me. You are not fooling anyone else. You are just fooling yourself.
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.