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.
jc...
They have no business encouraging homosexuality, or forcing its acceptance upon students or faculty. The schools should teach the kids to behave like civilized people, that every individual should be treated with respect. Instead, they choose to indoctrinate them in leftist ideology. The entire school should be a safe zone for everyone. The whole idea of special protection for any one group is unAmerican.
4 posted on 01/26/2003 3:07 PM PST by Jeff Chandler ( ; -)
fC...
They have no business encouraging homosexuality (( evolutuion // atheism )) **, or forcing its acceptance upon students or faculty. The schools should teach the kids to behave (( think )) ** like civilized people, that every individual should be treated with respect. Instead, they choose to indoctrinate them in (( hard core )) ** leftist ideology (PC // BIAS )) ** . The entire school should be a safe zone (( NO brainwashing )) ** for everyone. The whole idea (( tyranny )) ** of special protection (( MONOPOLY )) ** for any one group (( privelegdes )) ** is . . . unAmerican - - - (( forced RELIGION establishment // vetting // witch hunts // elites )) ** .
.. .. .. ** my additions !
It was therefore for their own interests that the bourgeoisie were in duty bound to undermine the “divinity” right of rulers. Natural science became a weapon in the opposition to belief and tradition; science and the newly discovered natural laws were put forward; it was with these weapons that the bourgeoisie fought. If the new discoveries could prove that what the priests were teaching was false, the “divine” authority of these priests would crumble and the “divine rights” enjoyed by the feudal class would be destroyed. Of course the feudal class was not conquered by this only, as material power can only be overthrown by material power, but mental weapons become material tools. It is for this reason that the bourgeoisie relied so much upon material science.
Darwinism came at the desired time; Darwin’ s theory that man is the descendant of a lower animal destroyed the entire foundation of Christian dogma. It is for this reason that as soon as Darwinism made its appearance, the bourgeoisie grasped it with great zeal.
This was not the case in England. Here we again see how important the class struggle was for the spreading of Darwin’ s theory. In England the bourgeoisie had already ruled a few centuries, and as a mass they had no interest to attack or destroy religion. It is for this reason that although this theory was widely read in England, it did not stir anybody; it merely remained a scientific theory without great practical importance. Darwin himself considered it as such, and for fear that his theory might shock the religious prejudices prevailing, he purposely avoided applying it immediately to men. It was only after numerous postponements and after others had done it before him, that he decided to make this step. In a letter to Haeckel he deplored the fact that his theory must hit upon so many prejudices and so much indifference that he did not expect to live long enough to see it break through these obstacles.
But in Germany things were entirely different, and Haeckel correctly answered Darwin that in Germany the Darwinian theory met with an enthusiastic reception. It so happened that when Darwin’ s theory made its appearance, the bourgeoisie was preparing to carry on a new attack on absolutism and junkerism. The liberal bourgeoisie was headed by the intellectuals. Ernest Haeckel, a great scientist, and of still greater daring, immediately drew in his book, “Natural Creation,” most daring conclusions against religion. So, while Darwinism met with the most enthusiastic reception by the progressive bourgeoisie, it was also bitterly opposed by the reactionists.
The same struggle also took place in other European countries. Everywhere the progressive liberal bourgeoisie had to struggle against reactionary powers. These reactionists possessed, or were trying to obtain through religious followers, the power coveted. Under these circumstances, even the scientific discussions were carried on with the zeal and passion of a class struggle. The writings that appeared pro and con on Darwin have therefore the character of social polemics, despite the fact that they bear the names of scientific authors. Litany of Haeckel’ s popular writings, when looked at from a scientific standpoint, are very superficial, while the arguments and remonstrances of his opponents show unbelievable foolishness that can only be met in the arguments used against Marx.
If so, my response is that they also should draw a distinction between a European capitalist and a biblically literate North American Christian capitalist.
The United States was founded because a group of biblically literate Christians fled the oppression of a Traditional Church with a system that kept the masses biblically illiterate.
By the way Jesus was clearly a rebel against the Traditions of the Jewish religion of the 1st century. He continually reinforced the necessity for people to know Him personally rather than any mediating Church or Religion, thereby stripping establishment power.
Our founding fathers understood this teaching intimately. Capitalism with personal accountability, which necessitates a common moral compass. These standards were thread throughout the genesis of our country. Beware of any theory or idea that blurs those standards, for it will decay our country as it did Rome.
Very few bourgeoisie this side of the Atlantic, just hard working people with a strong Christian work ethic!
If so, my response is that they also should draw a distinction between a European capitalist and a biblically literate North American Christian capitalist.
If you keep this up much longer, you're going to be talking only to yourself on this thread. And maybe everywhere else.
The point of my two links was to illustrate - from the mouth of the Marxists themselves - how they have used Darwin's theory to justify themselves.
As you know, communism (which is the practice of Marxism) is at the root of the slaughter of many.
The first link illustrates how materialist dialectic is the theoretical foundation of Marxism.
We've had some pretty nice chats in the last few weeks, but I hate to see you in g3k's camp on this. Bad people can find justification in any theology or ideology. All it takes is the will and the means to force others to conform. The 20th century excelled in both the will and the means. I don't think a lesser body count makes theological tyranny any more appetizing.
The above links and the statements (including that communism is the practice of Marxism) are from the Marxist website. The observation that many have died because of communism is my own.
It is true that ideology has been at the root of slaughter over the history of mankind. This website has the best collection of data on the subject known to me.
Gore3000's statements are largely substantiated by the Marxists themselves. My function on this forum for years has been to research claims (usually by the press, but also by other Freepers) --- and provide sources. I let the chips fall where they may and arrive at my own conclusions independently.
The problem isn't with the words of Jesus. The problem has always been with the wretched profession of priestcraft -- those who presume to act in His behalf. Sometimes they get it wrong. And when religion is united with government, they almost always get it wrong -- to the everlasting detriment of the rest of us.
Indeed, a lot of people were killed under the doctrine of convert or die. That doctrine was not supported by the Word of God, and I doubt many of the soldiers would have carried it out had they known what the Bible really said.
The convert or die doctrine has been adopted by Islamic extremists. But I don't know whether the Koran justifies it.
The link I gave at 1089 puts all deaths by ideology in perspective.
And isn't that the subject of the neverending thread? Personally I have no problem with Darwinism being taught as a theory with unsettled issues, nor do I object to ID being mentioned, provided it comes up with some lines of research. I'll hold my breath.
Don't. You'll turn blue.
The only perspective I was bringing to the table was the Marxists' official view of Darwinism, the influence that it had on the spread of communism. Their testimony (particularly from the early 1900's) should carry more weight than my conjecture.
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.