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.
That is EXACTLY WHY IT IS SCIENCE.
That's a good one! You should be writing for our side! I mean, the evolutionist excuse 'lack of evidence is not evidence of lack' was bad enough. However, your lack of evidence for evolution is proof of evolution really takes the cake! Are you a comedian in real life or do you just play one on these threads?
Problem is that science keeps disproving evolution:
1. The disproof of Darwin's racist claim that the brachyocephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior. While some may dismiss this as a minutae, it is a strong refutation of evolution because it shows that there has been no 'evolution' in the human species and according to evolutionists evolution is always going on.
2. Mendelian genetics showed that the transfer of new traits was very difficult and well nigh impossible because with only one individual in an entire species having the mutation it would not spread and most likely die unless it had a very large selective advantage.
2a. Mendelian genetics also showed the concept of alleles - duplicate genes in every organism which performed the same function but a bit differently. This allows the adaptation of a species to the environment without the need to wait for a chance mutation to occur. It shows that transformation of organisms is not necessary for survival or for adaptation.
3. DNA - a Nobel Prize winning discovery - showed the utter complexity of the cells in every organism. It laid to rest forever the concept that just a little mutation could transform an organism or a species.
4. Genome Project - showed the utter interrelatedness of every single gene, cell, part of the body. It has shown that it is impossible for any new trait to evolve by chance occurrence (or at random, or without design or whatever you wish to call how evolutionary changes to the genome are supposed to occur according to evolution). For any change, for any transformation to occur, there would need to be the coevolution of the new trait together with a complete support system to make it work. This of course is totally ludicrous, especially in view of 2 and 3 above.
5. Paleontology has shown that the problems with fossils are even greater than in Darwin's time. In the Cambrian Explosion we are finding more species suddenly occurring making the disproof of evolution greater. We also in spite of having 100 times more fossils that in Darwin's time have the same vast gaps between major classifications of species and man's descent from apes has been discredited and the time of the supposed branching between man and ape keeps getting pushed back further and further.
So as you can see, your statement is absolutely wrong.
That's true in a trivial sense that could apply to virtually any statement, but I was responding to the proposition that for a statement to be called scientific, there must exist evidence specifically in support of it. The point is not, "is there any basis for making such a statement", but "is the existence of evidence necessary and/or sufficient for a statement to be scientific". There is no evidence for the existence of extra physical dimensions in nature, and indisputable evidence that Bill Clinton is a congenital scumbag, but while the first idea is scientific, the second is not.
Evolution is not science. It has more holes than Swiss Cheese that's why evolutionists are unwilling to discuss the evidence for it. They have no worthwhile evidence for evolution. As to evolution being science, let me just say this, evolution is about the transformation of species into other more complex species. This has never been observed. However, that the progeny are the same species as the parents is observed millions of times every day.
Good heavens what a narrow mind. Your arguments at best were interesting. You neither showed that such descent is impossible nor that it must be true for any theory of evolution to be viable. Try using your imagination a little, I think you'll see many alternative paths popping up.
under Christianity
Which Christian theocracy are you speaking of? Science has flourished no place more than in the U.S. Hardly a theocracy.
deny science by claiming that matter organizes itself by random means
Who is claiming that? And if someone is, how is it denying science? So many dubious premises.
There sure have been, lots of them from your fellow evolutionist Dan Day
I would only suggest to him that he not waste time with such a disingenuous thick-skulled dolt who deserves only the same amount of considered argument as he produces (and I'm not referring to you).
If there is no evidence, the most it can be called is a hypothesis, not a theory. The phlogiston theory is also a scientific theory by your terms but since it has been shown to be false it is nonsense. What you are appealing to here is formalism not the truth or verity of evolution which is really all that matters.
Okay. So?
That there is nothing but matter though is easily refuted - consciousness, conscience, intelligence, logic, mathematics, love have no material existence.
This sentence could be easily picked apart (not that it's false, only that there is room for dangerous ambiguity), but why try? Who here claims that there is nothing but matter?
I know you think you are responding considerately to my post, so I hold no grudge. However, try pealing away a few more presumptions and read it again.
Part of the problem is buying into this heavily repeated accusation that creationist opponents must be materialists. I suppose there are some materialists, but I'm certainly not one. And trust me, the world of human thought is a lot richer than a simple creationist/materialist dichotomy.
Just do me the favor of taking my words in their simplest most literal meaning first.
It was in anticipation of this that I described bad science. It is not trivially true but fundamentally true and distinguishes science from nonscience (or bad science). Very few statements actually have this property. Most have faulty reasoning or concepts split from reality.
but I was responding to the proposition that for a statement to be called scientific, there must exist evidence specifically in support of it. The point is not, "is there any basis for making such a statement", but "is the existence of evidence necessary and/or sufficient for a statement to be scientific".
The existence of evidence IS necessary, but not sufficient for a statement to be scientific.
I think what you mean by "specifically" is some sort of observation that seals the divide between a fact of reality and a speculation. But if that were true, it would no longer be a speculation.
If your argument is that speculation can be scientific I agree in the sense that scientific methods can be used to secure knowledge up to the point of the unknown aspect of the speculation, and that the speculation can be made in a manner that does not contradict with what is known about reality. That is to say, hypothesizing and theorizing are, of course, scientific. They cannot have meaning however outside the observations that stimulated their suppositions.
There is no evidence for the existence of extra physical dimensions in nature...but while the first idea is scientific.
If I didn't have to go buy a birthday pizza, this in itself could be an interesting discussion. I'm not convinced that the supposition of extraphysical dimensions in nature (the phrase itself is a contradiction as there is no nature (physical) outside of nature, but I know what you mean) doesn't break from reality. Is science fiction "science"?
Tut, tut. I didn't say "extraphysical dimensions", but "extra physical dimensions", meaning physical (real) dimensions that are additional to the ones that we are at liberty to move about in. That's pure conjecture--no evidence whatsoever--but if they do exist, there may be experimentally testable consequences, and that is what makes it science.
Not assumptions. Informed analysis.
First I will qualify my answer. Evolution is not my field of study. Now that that’s out of the way, yes from everything I have read and following the discoveries of the scientific community, evolution is indeed science. Creationism/ID are not. The first is a theory that is testable; the second falls in the realm of faith.
ROFL!
I like that :-) LOL!
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Prove that there is anything there but simple chemical reactions or your own baseless creationist bias.
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.