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.
Nonsense. First of all evolutionists have been claiming for 150 years that evolution is true yet, they have absolutely no scientific proof that the transition from egg-laying to live bearing is possible. This is not a matter of imagination. Imagination is for the Art Bell crowd, science is about evidence. All the scientific evidence points to the impossibility of this transformation. I pointed out the problems which make it impossible in post# 751 which has been studiously ignored by evolutionists. You will find it below and the scientific evidence to back it up was already provided in Post# 257 , Post# 425 , and Post# 542 . If you want imagination, stick to Hansel and Gretel:
The main reason why it could not have happened in a single generation has already been explained to you numerous times but you keep evading it. The process requires changes in both the mother and the baby to work. This means coordination of the changes between the mother and the baby. This means at least more than one thing had to be changed at once. There is no way this could have occurred in a single generation by stochastic means. You also are in the habit of speaking of organs as if they can arise by a single mutation. There are numerous new organs involved here such as the chorion, and the placenta which could not have arisen by just a single mutation and thus could not have happened in a single generation. There are as I have detailed some half dozen proteins necessary just to get the placenta to adhere to the uterus - and make the uterus receptive to the placenta. Again, this could not have happened with one mutation in a single generation. In live birth, the wastes are kept in the amniotic sac which surrounds the baby, in egg layers, the wastes are kept in a sac not surrounding the baby. This is a very big change which could not have happened with one mutation and hence could not have arisen in one generation. In egg layers the nutritional arteries and the waste arteries are totally separate and have different destinations, in the live bearing they are both joined together in the umbilical cord. This is another change that would have required more than one mutation and hence could not have occurred in one generation.
Sorry bout that, it should have read DENY instead of SAYS.
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.
The statement below clearly implies your belief that everything is materialistic:
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.
That the non-material can be discerned from its effects on the material as art shows us gives proof that the immaterial is part of reality and can therefore be observed, studied and provide evidence for itself.
Of course evolutionists cannot say that the transformation took place in a single generation, it is obvuously ridiculous. However, that many of the essential parts of it had to have occurred in a single generation is also very obvious and this totally disproves evolution since they clearly could not have. That is why you talk nonsense instead of addressing the problems stated with scientific facts.
To be a good scientist requires a good imagination. I'm sorry, but perhaps not surprised, that you disdain it.
The process requires changes in both the mother and the baby to work.
This has not been demonstrated.
This means coordination of the changes between the mother and the baby.
Nor this.
This means at least more than one thing had to be changed at once.
Nor this.
There is no way this could have occurred in a single generation by stochastic means.
Certainly not this.
You also are in the habit of speaking of organs as if they can arise by a single mutation. There are numerous new organs involved here such as the chorion, and the placenta which could not have arisen by just a single mutation and thus could not have happened in a single generation.
Begging the question. You can't assume the failure of continuity in order to prove its failure.
There are as I have detailed some half dozen proteins necessary just to get the placenta to adhere to the uterus - and make the uterus receptive to the placenta. Again, this could not have happened with one mutation in a single generation.
A continuation of the same petitio principii.
In live birth, the wastes are kept in the amniotic sac which surrounds the baby, in egg layers, the wastes are kept in a sac not surrounding the baby. This is a very big change which could not have happened with one mutation and hence could not have arisen in one generation.
Hugely unsubstantiated presumptions.
In egg layers the nutritional arteries and the waste arteries are totally separate and have different destinations, in the live bearing they are both joined together in the umbilical cord. This is another change that would have required more than one mutation and hence could not have occurred in one generation
More of the same.
As arguments or questions to challenge evolutionary theories, many of these points may be interesting. They may be persuasive. They may even be true. But holy cow, they come nowhere near any kind of the demonstrated proof of impossibility you claim they are. There is not a single logical contradiction--a notion analyzable independent of observable evidence--amongst them. You claim WAY too much power for your arguments.
That you cannot see this, and comprehend a single alternative possibility which is all that is needed to PROVE that they lack the conclusiveness you claim, is likely a result of the deliberate and admitted surgical removal of your own imagination.
'Scuse me for butting in, but the fact that the US is not a formal theocracy, does not vacate the uniquely powerful influence of Christianity upon the thinking of our Founders and the ideals upon which our nation is based. To say that America has not existed "under Christianity " is historical malpractice.
A great new little book, "On Two Wings" by Michael Novak details this reality. Novak speaks of how faith and reason combined in the American mind to produce an intellectual life uniquely suited to inquiry and discovery.
Unfortunately, our educational system, fearing we might offend someone ( such a sin!! ), has provided us with a generation that is fast becoming ignorant of their roots. For many who think they "know" the Founders," this book will deliver a most unpleasant shock.
You are right. My mistake. There is no inherent contradiction.
However, I am not convinced that such speculation can be arrived at without a contradiction of observed reality. However, sir, I will certainly consider it further.
It's humbling that the difference between being right and being wrong can be a mere--space.
I see. I trust this is a true statement. I'm not sure why it is important to point it out at this point, but I'll keep it in mind.
The statement below clearly implies your belief that everything is materialistic:
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.
Maybe the key word here is "implies", b/c what I said is clearly consistent with anti-materialistic ideology. For example, I didn't deny consciousness exists (which is the characteristic materialist stance). I merely said that consciousness without a brain is contrary to our observations.
To say that it has is factually incorrect. The most you can say is that Christianity has existed and prospered under the laws of the United States. Most of the Founders were Christians, but the laws they produced don't even presuppose a Christ, let alone mandate obedience to one.
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.