Refuting Darwinism, point by point

EVOLUTION WATCH Refuting Darwinism, point by point Author's new book presents case against theory in just 83 pages

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

here are many different steps that could have

"Could have" is not a scientific term. When you and your friends can prove me wrong with facts instead of rhetoric, then we can talk. You folk claim to be scientists and cannot give scientific evidence to disprove my post. Evolution is a joke, not science, and a bad joke at that.

Yes, I got the 900 and 901st posts, didn't say much, but there is not a lot to say at this point.

Nothing at all from G3K but his normal regurgitated garbage, and I have yet to have an answer from MEgoody as far as REAL scientific proof against evolution.

Too bad, I was looking forward to an actual debate with someone, and not the same old refuted, and then regurgitated nonscientific crap we get from G3K.

I guess this thread is destined to die a slow death, well, maybe tomorrow it will get more interesting.

Here's hoping!!

Oh, and Blueman, don't bother, your lame, ignorant, refuted and proved false, creationist, ID, nonscientific babble is back on ignore.

I am not a scientist, I don't even play one on TV.

I have never claimed to be a scientist, I know enough though to know that if evolution is TRULY scientifically refuted, then it would NOT be a well founded and well respected theory.

G3K continues with his strawman arguments, and you claim that since I am NOT a scientist that I have no right to an opinion based on science.

Isn't that special?

And materialistic faith? Have never heard of that religion, and I have no faith in science. Science is based on facts and conclusions based on those facts and evidence. There is NO faith about it.

If the best scientists in the world cannot come up with a better theory then the theory of evolution, I know for a fact that G3K and others of his ilk will not have a snowballs chance in hell at it either, because it is OBVIOUS that they are most definitely NOT the best minds in science.

I look at their posts and have to laugh, because it is ALL based on the SAME nonscientific nonstarter. The hand of god or the intelligent Designer, NEITHER of which is science.

If you want to debate religion, then start a religious thread, but to try to say that evolution is impossible BASED on a religious theory is ridiculous, and of course a nonstarter.

Or haven't you been paying attention?

Let's see, G3K still claims that ID is science, Fchristian of course throws in his sometimes witty and sometimes just plain untranslatable posts.

G3K claims that it is impossible to go from egg laying to live birth, in any steps at all, because I guess if one thing changes, the whole system somehow quits working, still am clueless as to how he came to this conclusion.

Radioastronomer and Physicist have both placed their scientific minds to the question of whether evolution was indeed science, and they of course said YES, Evolution is TRULY science.

Of course, G3K and others of his ilk continue to claim that it is not.

I have made a few fopahs, and of course G3K has jumped on them like some kind of cat, and of course PH is having a good time with his comments, especially his purity of essence posts, you'll just have to find it and follow it, because it really is a kick in the pants.

Oh and we have another face that has been debating G3K quite well, Dan Day, and it seems dataman is frustrated, oh and G3K continues to think that we can't get there from here, even after 900 posts and 100 of them refuting what he has been saying, so he took ALL his posts and tossed them together about 10 posts back to confuse the issue and of course hopefully wear us down to a point where if he gets the last word, it means of course that he won the argument.

That's a pretty reasonable synopsis, but they really want to discuss religion as if it's science, and it really gets frustrating.

Oh well, where's the philosophy thread where we can discuss religious theories and opinions? If you don't know of one, then we need to start one and invite the creationists over, then at least they would be in the right type of thread for their belief structure, and won't be making fools of themselves by calling it science.

This is true, and I respect physicists opinion GREATLY.

But, the fact of the matter is that evolution is based on reliable facts and evidence that are easily seen.

Physicist works in a more interesting science, it is going to be a while before we are technologically ABLE to say that the particles and graviton waves etc, actually exist, as fact. It sure makes sense, but there is yet to be any physical evidence, but, it is INDEED science, and I love it when physicist tosses his studies into these discussions, they are WAY over my head of course, but they are VERY fascinating.

Thank you so much for your summary of the thread!

Oh well, where's the philosophy thread where we can discuss religious theories and opinions?

There is a very good philosophy thread going on Science and Spirituality. Right now betty boop, beckett, Phaedrus, VadeRetro and Cornelis are deep (and I do mean deep) into the discussion.

Perhaps we ought to have a more general "laying of the cards?" Would you mind summarizing your religious theory or opinion?

I have made a few fopahs,

Including the most nails-on-the-chalkboard misspelling of "faux pas" I've *ever* seen... LOL.

That's a pretty reasonable synopsis, but they really want to discuss religion as if it's science,

...and science as if it's a religion. Meanwhile we try to be old fashioned and discuss religion as religion and science as science.

Oh well, where's the philosophy thread where we can discuss religious theories and opinions?

Actually, I've seen several threads head that direction after starting out on a more specific religious-based topic.

Too bad, I was looking forward to an actual debate with someone, and not the same old refuted, and then regurgitated nonscientific crap we get from G3K.

I've had enough from you. I have posted numerous facts and evidence already and all you do is insult and LIE saying that I have given no evidence. All you and your friends have been doing is LYING and insulting. Enough is enough.

Thank you for your post! Indeed, Physicist is a treasure to Free Republic! I brought his previous post to your attention in the event you would want to qualify your previous statement in some way.

In my view, scientific theories have to survive a highly critical peer review process before they are taken seriously - and they should always include a means of falsification. Once taken seriously, two mindsets get to work - one to substantiate, one to debunk.

WAH, go cry somewhere else, just because it is YOUR opinion, does NOT make it factual.

Sure, the process is complicated, but you have shown NOTHING that proves that it is IMPOSSIBLE, in any way shape or form. To get there from here, or to get here from there is FAR from impossible, as a matter of fact, it is MOST probable.

Your OPINION does NOT make it fact.

Just because you SAY it is impossible and show the drawings of the processes involved, does NOT make it impossible.

You make the SAME mistake Behe did, real scientists would tear you to shreds and not even break a sweat.

We are amateurs and your argument still falls apart.

Maybe when you start with a reasonable assumption, instead of saying IMPOSSIBLE like it is the word of god or something, maybe we will take you seriously.

But I am NOT even close to taking you seriously.

Belief in either is a choice, because neither position is supported by incontrovertible proof.

There isn't any incontrovertible proof for anything, since no matter what you think you know, you could, for instance, be mistinterpreting or hallucinating. So your standard proves too much.

Is there any evidence at all for creationism? Not really. Not any that obviously explains away the fossil record. The fossil record, on the other hand, is evidence for evolution.

So yes, there is quite a difference in the amount of evidence in favor of one explanation, and that same evidence is an unexplained mystery in the other explanation.

if evolution is supposedly true, why don't we have more 'varieties' of humans

How many more varieties would be required to make evolution true?

Thank you for your post!

IMHO, a position statement (and definition of terms) - especially concerning philosophy - is very important in these contentious debates.

There is a difference between a materialist and a physicalist. Some who are accused of being materialist are actually physicalist, because although their epistemology is materialistic, their metaphysics are something else.

This subject was explored at length starting around post 4284.

IMHO, lurkers have little patience for the pontification or excessive verbiage which can result from a failure to establish basic positions. So, although I can appreciate the desire to separate the metaphysical to a new thread, I suspect everyone's argument would be better received by passers-by if a position statement were made here.

LOL,

Sorry, it started as a joke, and then I continued it as a trap for G3K, but he never sprung it.

I thought for sure that he would make fun of me for it, but he never did, rather disappointing, but, hardly surprising.

Sorry for the calk board feel though, I wouldn't have done it if I had known you felt that way about it. NOTHING hurts more then the nails across a chalk board!! OUCHY, sorry man!!

Don't be frustrated by those who refuse to examine your coherent and persuasive arguments. In law it is said when you can't handle the facts attack the witness and that's what the evolutionists have done with you G3K. But as the guy who started this thread and who knew far less about the subject than I thought I did, your presentation of the difficulty of a creature moving from egg laying to live bearing has been very convincing. Far too many changes required in both the mother and the fetus in one (or even a few ) generations to be believable as the result of random mutations. Don't let the ad hominem attacks make you shrink from speaking out.

What facts?

He shows a bunch of pictures, then says that it is impossible to get there from here. Where are the facts, and where are the persuasive arguments?

I haven't seen any.

There are a number of in between stages that ACTUALLY exist in nature today, add a little here, and it will still work just fine, delete a little here, and it still works just fine. You can get there from here, because the in betweens actually exist and function JUST fine.

He has not proven his main theory, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an egg layer to evolve to a live birth creature over MANY generations. He just spouts that it is impossible to get there from here in one generation, well DUH!!! and of course therefore it disproves evolution.

It does NO SUCH thing, it shows that he lacks any knowledge of what he is talking about, and has an agenda that he is pushing with his strawman arguments.

To get to here from there is not only possible, but HIGHLY probable, considering that MOST of the in between steps ACTUALLY exist in nature NOW. It is NOT a great leap to logically conclude that humans could have evolved from an egglayer at some point in the FAR distant past.

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.