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.
What "window" would that be? Are you asserting that there's some "window" we can look out of and see God? If you know of the location of this window, like the secret passage in "Being John Malkovich", perhaps you should share it.
And if not, stop chiding people for "refusing" to look out of an imaginary window where you believe God would be found hiding if we all joined hands and imagined looking out the same window together.
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.
Ah, "believe". So it comes back to Faith once again. You should just come right out and say so.
And you're suffering from a misconception when you presume that lack of belief can be due to a "refusal to believe". Belief is not something we can consciously choose to do or not do. Can you choose to regain belief in Santa Claus? Can you choose to stop believing in death just because it would be more comforting to deny it will someday come to you? Try it and see.
I never "refuse to believe" -- I wouldn't know how. Do you?
I used to believe in your sort of god. Then eventually, through no volitional choice of my own, I stopped believing in it, for exactly the same reason I can't believe in Hank. I simply couldn't maintain a belief in something so patently unbelievable and circular, no matter how much I "wanted" to believe it for its obvious comforts, and how much peer pressure there was to maintain it.
Belief is not something you choose. It comes or leaves unbidden, like love. Or gets involuntarily rejected like a badly matched kidney transplant.
"Materialism", as you so dismissively (and inadequately) call it, isn't what made me "refuse to believe" -- it was what was still left after my brain ejected the foreign body of deism.
Not quite as simplistic as your "I've got it all figured out" presumption, sorry.
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.
Nonsense. For example, show me something supernatural and I'll easily be persuaded. Got any? If not, maybe that "comfortable self-centered reality" isn't such an unreasonable position after all.
Maybe you're just expressing your own inability to come up with any actual evidence or sufficiently persuasive argument for your "imagine a window with me" worldview.
That, of course, is your choice.
Why thank you.
But that choice robs you of the ability to point the finger at creationists and accuse them of intellectual stubbornness; it is hypocrisy.
BAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks, this thread needed a good knee-slapper.
It also causes your "scientific" air of superiority to evaporate; you aren't interested in truth, only the support of your baseless suppositions.
You have not proven your case, and in fact there are many counterexamples.
But if your idea of "truth" is to assert that there are invisible windows we should be believing in, then don't be surprised when you don't find many takers among the "show me" crowd.
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.
Don't mistake your premise for your conclusion, or your frustrations for reality.
And don't be so arrogant as to declare such a premature victory.
"You refuse to see the light!""What light?"
"The light of Truth!"
"Um, okay, where?"
"It's there if you just look!"
"Look *where*?"
"All around! It shines from the world around us if you but open your eyes!"
"Um... You sure?"
"Yes! *I* see it, why can't you?!"
"Don't be afraid of the guys in the white coats, they're here to help."
"You fools! Can't you see that you're just choosing to be blind? That you're stubborn and unscientific and dishonest?"
"For not buying your 'trust me on this light thing' proposition?"
"Yes!"
"You've *got* to be kidding..."
"Ha! You've lost the argument!"
"Wasn't much of an argument..."
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.
Besides being funny as hell, I wanted to applaud you for cutting to the heart of the matter in such a direct way.
It is my choice not to claim to know things that I cannot know.
...and again here.
If Dataman has any sense (and he's obviously not stupid), he'll sit down and ponder the deeper significance of those statements a while before he tries to resume the discussion.
Criticism is "allowed" all the time. What makes you think it's not? Hell, the whole process of peer-review is to *invite* criticism, loads of it, as much as people can think of. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
If you're clumsily referring to the "equal time" flap, that's not about "allowing criticism", that's about refusing to let religion be taught as if it were science. I'll agree to that sort of "equal time" just as soon as scientists are granted equal time in every Sunday school. But I don't think *either* is a good idea, frankly.
If you mean something about these threads, well, the only "convulsions" that "defenders of evolution" go into are convulsions of laughter, mixed with convulsions of dry heaves from being aghast at the poor state of science education in the public at large (you don't necessarily have to *agree* with basic scientific principles, but it would be nice if folks *understood* them before they set out to try to knock some down).
If you fear criticism, you have something to hide.
Nothing to hide here.
Creation doesn't fear criticism nor does it demand the removal of the evolutionary theory from schools.
What planet do *YOU* live on?
Since the 1987 Louisiana decision, public school authorities in Alabama, Arizona, Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina and Texas, have attempted to eliminate or de-emphasize evolution in scientific course materials in public schools. In 2001, the Hawaii state board of education and the Arkansas and Michigan legislatures all faced efforts to remove evolution and/or include creationism in their science curricula.Perhaps most well-known is the 1999 decision by the Kansas Board of Education to remove evolution, as a concession to creationists, from the list of subjects tested on state standardized tests. Although the previous standards were restored, a national debate on creationism still continues, with over half the states at both the state and local levels facing pressures from creationists similar to those resulting in the Kansas concessions.
-- "Creationism in the Science Classroom", The Interfaith Alliance Foundation
Darwinists, however, demand a government-funded monopoly.
No, just believe that science is what should be taught in science classes.
That's logical, fair, balanced and self-confident isn't it? No! It is the manifest paranoia of the darwinists.
You're sounding a bit shrill yourself, bud.
It is the religious nature of a belief that makes it impervious to reason or observation.
You've got *that* right...
Even Hume said it was reasonable to believe in a Creator.
Hume (1711-1776) lived before almost all modern science, and all of evolutionary theory, so I'm not sure he's the best person to look to for a balanced consideration of religion versus science.
It is the materialistic foundation of darwinism that is impervious to reason.
That's quite the oxymoron you've got there.
[beavus wrote:]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?
What do you mean, "fossils"? There has been one (1), and it was a comedy of errors, very quickly caught and exposed by, you must be astonished to learn, the peer-review process. Nor was it faked by any scientist in order to bolster any theory, it was assembled by the Chinese peasant who gathered it, knowing that "complete" specimens get more money on the black market than fragments.
This is a good example of evolutionary science correcting itself, instead of just embracing whatever seems to support its case. That sort of shoots your whole theory down, doesn't it? Read about it, you'll see that the mistake only happened at *all* because National Geographic, in its haste, chose to skip accepted procedures which normally prevent such screwups.
How about Lucy?
How about it? There's nothing wrong with Lucy, except for some creationist lies. What else have you got?
I'm sure my creationist/id associates could list pages of manufactured evidence.
No, actually, they couldn't. In 100+ years of paleontology, the fakes can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
The number of false accusations of fakery by creationists because they find a particular fossil hard to explain, however...
Right you are, which is why the theory of evolution, fake pepperd moths and all, is not science.
Peppered moths aren't "fake", they're perfectly real. It might help if you learned more about the topic before you expose more of your ignorance. And it might help your case if your proferred "evidence" against evolution didn't turn out to be mostly imaginary prejudice.
By contrary to our observations, I was referring to such notions as consciousness without a brain, vision without sense organs, actuation without matter or energy, and existence in a "universe" devoid of space and time.
Sigh -- okay, if you insist. One sec while I go look out the metaphysical window...
Okay, I'm back. I saw pink unicorns, what did you see?
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.
The Straw Man fallacy is pretty basic too, like the one you just made. Contrary to your misrepresentation of it, his position was actually that anything which interacts with the universe ought to be properly considered part *of* the universe, which is fundamentally different from your misunderstanding of what he's trying to say.
He's arguing from an inclusive view, you attributed to him an exclusive view.
You thought he was trying to prove the non-existence of anything beyond the universe (as *you* define the universe and the concept of "beyond" it). Instead, he was simply saying that whatever exists, he'd rather view it as being part of the all-encompassing "universe" (as *he* views the concept of "universe").
Like all too many battling philosophers, you two are bitching about definition choice, not substance.
Ten yard penalty.
Evolution is almost composed exclusively of elements that are not observable! Shame beavus! Was I mistaken when I gave you credit for thinking?
No, you were mistaken when you presumed that you fully understood his point before you starting throwing the insults.
Evolution, like any science, rests upon observations. Sure, we can't "observe" amphibians splitting off from fish (we weren't there at the time), but we can certainly observe literally millions of pieces of hard, see-and-touch evidence today which may shed light on the event.
His comment, however, was dealing with the very unobservable nature of your admonition to "look out the window" in a metaphysical sense.
If you want to focus on truly observable phenomena and argue that it should count as convincing evidence for a deity, feel free and try to make your case.
But the moment you get frustrated when that's not going as well as you had hoped and you start just shouting at people to "look beyond your materialistic philosophy room and look out the window", *that's* when it's fair game to start teasing you about your invisible friends.
If you want to make an evidence-based argument, make one.
If you want to make a faith-based argument, fine.
But don't try to tell us that one is identical to the other. And don't make the mistake of believing it yourself.
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.
Okay, *thirty* yard penalty for overweening conceit...
You people are supposed to be the enlightened ones yet you mock us if our vocabulary exceeds 800 words.
No, we mock you when you get pompous.
I can talk like William F. Buckley too, but why would I want to? Try reading the liberal "intellectual" publications sometime, they go *nuts* on that stuff. After the five hundredth sentence like, "a forum that would look for the means and modes of dialogues between critical discourses as various as semiotics, Habermasian critical pragmatics, Lacanian psychoanalysis, Foucauldian analysis, deconstruction, structuralism, and Chomskyian linguistics", I'm more than happy to talk like a normal person so as to put as much distance as possible between myself and that sort of robotic buzzspeak.
[beavus wrote:] 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.
Cool, so Dhatar is responsible for creation of the Earth, and if you want us to believe in that young upstart Jehovah, you've got an uphill climb ahead of you.
Tip: Don't get all snotty about claiming the crown of Mr. Logic one moment, then revert suddenly to, "my idea's better because it's older" -- it just makes you look silly.
I have given good reasons to believe why there is a reality outside of our physical universe.
I must have missed them, could you run them past us again?
You can only offer the lame and trampled excuse that if you can't observe it, it doesn't exist.
Straw man alert -- that's not what he said.
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.
If you want to claim the distinction of thinking in tune with a "7th-grader of average intelligence", I'll not try to dissuade you.
Most of evolution's claims are unobservable.
I suspect you're operating on a very restrictive definition of "unobservable" here...
If the unobservable element makes it impossible, then evolution is impossible as well.
Got any examples, or are you going to continue to destroy us with generalities?
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.
But, we can show how those different laws are a predictable and measurable consequent of quantum physics, and can calculate detailed accounts of what happened at various stages, and test them (within limits) in particle accelerators.
What have you got? "Well, it says here in this book written from Nth-generation oral histories that might have gotten a bit garbled along the way..."
That's not nearly as quantitatively predictive, is it?
So after running on and on about "logic logic logic", Dataman immediately goes to:
The lurkers are watching. So give it another try.
Matter: is it
eternal
or
created?
Someone who was actually as logical as he thought he was wouldn't stub his toe so badly on such a blatant "false dichotomy" fallacy...
He doesn't even read them let alone ponder them. He lures you into ostensible dialogue on false pretenses. Very rude.
No, be honest.
People *have* been able to answer the question.
They just haven't answered it in a way that is close enough to "my god, you're right!" for your tastes.
I'll grant you some of the creationists are at least trying to find evidence to fit their predetermined conclusions. This is a step above complete denial of science. I'll also grant that the evidence is sparse enough to admit a number of theories. That no one on this thread has presented evidence consistent with evolutionary theories is not correct. Certainly nothing has yet been presented to demonstrate the impossibility of any evolutionary theories. That being the case, you're not going to stop people from attempting to explain development of life on earth in terms consistent with our other observations in nature--along a continuum.
There have been insults. In thoughtful debate they have no place. In the rude refusal of the give-and-take of dialogue, the thoughtless theft of sincere debate for a crude sounding board, it is open season on the perpetrator.
Translation: "Their answers weren't the same as mine."
I hope the lurkers were able to understand the weaknesses of the materialist's presuppositions.
Translation: "I'm afraid people might think the opposition had some good points, so I'd better 'remind' you that I creamed them, really I did."
I also hope they were able to see just how this bunch of darwinists deal with tough questions-- name calling, subject changing and personal insults.
Translation: "Pay no attention to the places I accused them of being 'hypocritical', 'dishonest', 'biased', 'unscientific', 'illogical', 'manifest paranoia', 'superstitious', 'impervious to reason', 'no training in logic whatsoever', 'absurd', 'sophomoric', 'intellectually cowardly'... *They're* the ones who namecall and insult, really, surely you can see that!"
And speaking of changing the subject, I'd have to give the prize on this thread to the guy who decided to debate biological evolution by (the envelope please), WONDERING WHERE MATTER CAME FROM! Let's give a big hand to Dataman for his 14-billion-year change of subject -- he couldn't *possibly* get any farther away from evolution, timewise. That's gotta be some sort of record.
With that, I'm done waiting for an answer that will never come.
Translation: "I'm not dazzling them with my obvious brilliance, time to make my exit."
I assume you meant "theism." Regardless, a splendid sentence.
He was, however, an atheist.
Darwinists must necessarily belittle logic because it worries their theory. It must be minimized, shown to be unreliable and undependable. This is why Hume, after he said it is reasonable to believe in a Creator, also said that because there is no Creator reason must be unreliable. Did you get that? Hume, presumably from an armchair, ruled reason unreliable because it did not suit his worldview!
On to your next post.
No. Are you by chance trying to say evolution "science" was responsible for proving the earth to be a slightly malformed sphere? What's your point? What shall we all believe from the Fictitious Evolution Society? What do you really know for sure with all that static between your antennae?
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.
Too bad it's an "either/or" proposition ;)
- H.L. Mencken
You know full well that the materialist limits his universe to matter and its motion despite evidence to the contrary.
Ah, "believe". So it comes back to Faith once again. You should just come right out and say so.
Yes, I'll say it. Evolution is a belief system.
And don't be so arrogant as to declare such a premature victory.
Arrogant? Yes. And it was fun. But the difference between me and the evos is that I admit it. I took the attitude of the opposition for two reasons: I couldn't get you guys to answer the questions and I thought you might like to see how it feels.
Declare victory? The lurkers decide who wins. Are the crowds moving to your side? We've all heard about what rats do on a sinking ship.
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.