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.
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern ANARCHY age...
Now I understand the communication breakdown.
Naaa, just a fun little Ta-Da-Ta.
So much is currently changing in science with modern technology. Many of the textbooks you and I studied in college are obsolete today. (1985-87 geology major but no degree)
We were taught many fascinating things that are still "believed" to be true today. Quantum mechanics and technological advances have caused many scientific hard "facts" to be disputed. (electrons and protons aren’t the smallest form of matter anymore)
Nanotechnology has shown us how much we can manipulate atoms to create superstructure molecules that outperform "hammer and anvil" wrought materials. (Silicon CPU's) Super telescopes in space are revealing how uncommon a solar system we enjoy. (obviously nothing conclusive there yet)
No matter what our education or intelligence or ability to deduce and reason, there is always so much knowledge and understanding outside of our capacity, being dogmatic on any idea tends to cause us to make dangerous assumptions.
The schools and their textbooks have been so politicized much of the education we recieved has to be reevaluated. Honesty and integrity aren't the watchwords of modern education anymore.
With all of the intangibles in life, my only hope is that people will at least keep an open mind. I continue to try to force myself to do just that, despite my propensity to do just the opposite.
God is faithful to bring people like you along to remind me. You truly are a "voice in my head". Thank you. The jury's not out yet so keep being a diligent student, and post your adventures on FR for all to enjoy!
Fletcher Christian - Master's Mate Mutineer, age 23
His conduct, especially after the mutiny, indicate that he was thin-skinned, mercurial, and emotional. Here was a man who felt he had ability, but any criticism made him question his own worth.Remember the Bounty?
I graduated with a degree in Biology in December of 2002 - about a month ago.
"With all of the intangibles in life, my only hope is that people will at least keep an open mind. I continue to try to force myself to do just that, despite my propensity to do just the opposite."
A good way to force yourself to do just that would be to ponder my question. I am not suggesting that for my benefit, but for yours. I already attempted to get you to answer it 3 times - I know when to quit. Just ponder it to yourself. Think about how a theory regarding the genetic change of populations could lead a rational person acting prudently to conclude that there is no God. (Hint: Does evolution attempt to answer the question of where matter and energy came from?)
Darwin was a biologist, not an astronomer. The biological theory of evolution is not even remotely related to cosmology -- except that the time required for speciation is consistent with the age of the universe and the age of the earth. No "scientist" would even think to "extended Darwin’s evolutionary theory into the universe" because stars aren't biological entities.
Einstein and other scientists have attempted to create a unified model that could help to explain the origins of the universe. Of which, prior to Darwin, very little study of origins took place. (because of the scientist’s biblical view of creation)
It makes no sense to say "prior to Darwin" in this context.
You may know that Isaac Newton was a believer in Jesus Christ, and even wrote some prophetically significant commentary on books of the Bible. Newton's personal study of the prophecies in the book of Daniel cemented his conviction that Jesus was who he claimed to be.
Euclid probably believed in the Olympian gods. So what?
Newton’s contributions to the scientific community were also groundbreaking discoveries.
Yes. We know.
Without Newton's introduction of calculus and subsequent scientists building on his writings, Einstein would not have had the formulas to build his theories of relativity.
High school algebra is sufficient to understand special relativity. In any event, there is no issue as to the utility of calculus. We know Newton's work was significant. Why do you bring this up? Is it because Newton was a Christian? So what? Newton's scientific work is not based on the bible, any more than Euclid's work is based on the Iliad.
Modern physicists are floating the idea that the speed of light is not a constant, which makes even the E=MC2 provocative.
Huh? Could you be more specific here?
If light, being particles having mass (strangely traveling in waves), approaching a black hole accelerates the C (light traveling about 186,000 miles per second not so constantly) in E=MC2 would cause a clock in that area of space, relative to our clocks on earth, to be way faster than normal (relative to the acceleration).
[Sigh.] Not faster. Slower. Much slower.
The accuracy of atomic dating of rocks and our scientific estimates of the age of the universe may be making a decided shift in the next few years. Some scientists are claiming that the speed of light is decelerating according to the data collected since it began being measured.
Creation "scientists" make this claim. I don't believe that anyone who is knowlegable takes it seriously.
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.