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.
It is also interesting to note that when the scientific community is faced with evidence that contradicts current theories, science modifies to accommodate the new information.
Unfortunately, Creationists do no such thing, for to admit new evidence would require a basic attitudinal shift from believing the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Sadly, this movement is gaining momentum as individuals disdain education in favor of dogma - a grand legacy left over from liberals tinkering with American public education.
But even more egregious than liberal tinkering is the willingness displayed by Creationists to ignore the evidence which is literally at their feet. Imagination, invention and speculation are forbidden in such a culture, and I fear we are headed back to the the Dark Ages with the adoption of ID/Creationism in our public schools.
Fallacy of Equivocation.There is 'no evidence' for a 'reality' beyond the universe 'reality.' Reality and the 'refusal to believe' are separate things. These statements say that there is evidence for something beyond reality that is contained within reality, which means it is part of reality. The laws of logic are violated by these statements.
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.
As ugly as an Ad Hominem attack as I've ever seen. No content at all, just pure invective. (brittle, comfortable, 'self centered' {you make Ayn proud on that one})
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.
Whose Darwin? More Ad Hominem nonsense with no content. The fact is that evols are only dependent upon observations of reality, however in error those may be. Creationists must depend upon Begged Questions, Smuggled Premises and Assertions Without Proof before they can even put forth a theory.
It is the origin of matter that you cannot (will not?) explain.
What's the matter here is that there is no matter. Matter is an illusion, there is only energy. E=MC2. And energy has existed always, has always been traveling from one place to another, will always travel from one place to another.
There is only the Light, there has only ever been The Light and there will only ever be The Light.
Let it not be said that you are without a respect for the hard won fight for knowledge. Up yur notch on that one.
When I watch the Pope mumbling for hours, thinking He is saying something worthwhile, I think of fChristian. This is the needle and the damage done.
The Dark Ages were brought on because the church withheld the Bible from the individual. Therefore the individual wasn't aware of the corruption and power grab of those in power in the church. Good godly men were few and far between, because of corruption or ignorance. When the Bible became available to the masses a little experiment called the United States followed shortly thereafter.
Mind control went out when people began studying the Bible for themselves.
There isn't one theory that doesn't not contain the presupposition, the Begged Question, of a Supernatural that cannot be proven prior to the presupposition. Name me one thing, anything, the proves the existence of the Supernatural prior to the assumption of It's existence. By definition, it is not possible.
There is this story that seems to have captivated the world for the past 2000 years. This man did supernatural miracles. He made audacious statements about how we got on this planet. Where we go when we die. How we were designed to rule over the animals, not to think we are animals. The record, which is far more substantiated than any other ancient document, says he arose from the dead and spoke to many people for 40 days after his resurrection (500 people at one point).
Because we don't as individuals, or a group, have all knowledge in our universe, intellectually we can only take an agnostic position. God said there is no God before or after Him and there is no other God. Assuming He had the ability to create the universe we live in, we are convinced he would also know if there was a God other than Him. Therefore logically there doesn't necessitate prior existence to Him.
There are greatly more available documents, Biblical and non-Biblical, supporting the things Jesus said and did than documents supporting the life and teaching of Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. And they lived prior to Jesus.
There is no evidence. Zero, Zilch, nada. Nothing. No fingerprint of God, no toeprint, no bad breath, nothing. None.
An empty tomb. Many brilliant people for the last 2000 years have acknowledged Jesus as God. Newton, Galileo, Augustine and most importantly J.R.R. Tolkien among many others. Don't cast aside God's rendition of creation before a thorough investigation.
The breath in your lungs is from God, if your breath is bad brush your teeth and don't blame God. </sarcasm
PROVE that there is something out there before you make this lame Ad Hominem claim. Who appointed you judge over this man to call him 'Materialist?' Thy Beam makes thee Blind. And how do you know what makes him 'uncomfortable?'
Maybe it is just an honest search for truth based upon facts. Who are you to assert otherwise?
Major premise:
The universe is all that there is.
Minor premise: If something were outside the universe it could not be part of the universe.
Conclusion: Therefore something outside the universe cannot exist.
This isn't what he said, and this isn't Begging the Question. This could be termed Excluded Middle Term, Affirming the Consequent and a bunch of other stuff but this is all bull.
Properly structured this would be:
If there were something outside the Universe it could not exist.
There is something outside the Universe,
Therefore, there is something outside the Universe that cannot exist.
Your syllogism contains no common terms so you demonstrate that you don't understand logic well enough not to make the most basic fallacious errors.
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.
Seems you overcharge.
The burden of proof is on the new idea.
ok darkshadow, I finally found it. Have you met Donh? He holds there is no 'Burden of Proof' just a 'Burden of Best Guess'. Maybe you should argue with him. But he's just a Creationist in disguise. And I digress.
Burden of Proof means you must have some evidence before anyone can take your claim seriously. You have no evidence for yours, near as I can tell.
I have given good reasons to believe why there is a reality outside of our physical universe.
BY DEFINITION, not possible.
The burden of proof is on you to show or at least provide some logic that indicates why matter is eternal.
Why? Because you say so? Matter exists now, that is all you know. That is all you can ever know, try though you might. Prove that it isn't eternal (!) prove that it came from God. None of it can be 'proved.'
Of course I understand the argument I put forth. I admit some of the properties are unobservable. Most of evolution's claims are unobservable. If the unobservable element makes it impossible, then evolution is impossible as well. The properties are not incomprehensibly different.
'Unobservable' and without evidence are entirely two different things. I cannot 'observe' radiation but the evidence of its existence will kill me, as it did Madame Curie. I cannot 'observe' any 'evidence' that justifies Creationism. There is none. None. If one starts with just what one observes about the Universe, and never hears of the Bible, one will never, ever, ever, ever, reach the conclusion that Jesus Died on the Cross for Your Sins. Never. Ever.
Given only the evidence of the natural world one could arrive at evolution. The problem that Creationists now have is the question:
Why did God put so many fossils in the world to make it appear that evolution is true? Either God is very cruel in His judgments or He has a very weird sense of humor.
all i have time for today
Not me.
OK smart guy. What was his education? His profession?
This is so entirely typical of you evos. Mouth, mouth, mouth, switch off brain, pass judgement. Small minded folks like you don't simply ignore the truth, you suppress the truth.
But answer my question Mr. know-it-all, Mr. Science.
With that standard, how do you ever hope to be respected? You can't possibly expect any respect based on your behavior, can you?
You say: Fallacy of Equivocation.There is 'no evidence' for a 'reality' beyond the universe 'reality.' Reality and the 'refusal to believe' are separate things.
My response: Think again. Reality and refusal to belive are not equivocated. Bad analysis, LW. There is, despite your denial, evidence for the existence of another realm. Your religious statement, There is only the Light, there has only ever been The Light and there will only ever be The Light, reveals that you may believe that yourself.
As ugly as an Ad Hominem attack as I've ever seen.
You'd have to know what an ad hominem was before you could say it was ugly. Your particular fallacy is called ignoratic elenchi which, I'm sure, you'll have to look up.
My statement was true. ON YOUR OWN POST (1007)you state that nothing can exist outside the universe because you have defined it so (thus giving an excellent example of petitio principii).
So let's get this straight (your screen name implies you know logic): You say "by definition" nothing exists outside the universe, supporting your claim via fallacy.
I say that your kind refuse to consider arguments contrary to your reality.
You say that because we agree, my agreement is an ad hominem?
Change your ways or change your screen name.
Another example of petitio principii. The conclusion is included in the first term.
Like I said, change your screen name or change your ways. It might be easier to change your ways.
For a guy who habitually claims ad hominem! there sure were a lot of personal digs in your last post.
But, as you say, "all i have time for today."
Do you disagree that he's rude, disrespectful, arrogant, inconsiderate, and utterly biased?
QED, his parents were failures and his education was a failure.
Then what would that make your parents? It matters not, however because this exchange isn't happening accoriding to one of your logical brethern, LogicWings. He says matter is an illusion. Thus is his keyboard, computer, internet connection, FR, this thread, Kevin Curry and Balrog.
Therefore LogicWings, an evolution defender, defends evolution but denies the existence of the matter that evolved. No wonder you guys never win these debates!
No wonder you are still stuck in the Dark Ages.
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.