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.
Pot, meet kettle.
Many brilliant scientists were wrong when they wrote on nonscientific subjects. Think of Einstein's defense of socialism.
Demonstrably untrue.
Ever hear of Leibniz? He independently discovered Calculus around the same time that Newton did, and it is Leibniz's formulation of it that is used today, NOT Newton's.
Additionally, PH is correct that SR can be done without appeal to Calculus. In point of fact, the principle equations of SR are deriveable using nothing more than the Mathematics of Vector Spaces (with the addition of a rather clever "inner product"-like function). No calculus is required.
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.
You do but scientists don't? Scientists do extend and link together biological evolution and cosmological evolution. Or at least they snuck it under your radar.
I would like to clear up a few ideas regarding the Christian life that seem to be confusing. This relates to this thread because we believe that Darwin's theory was the final straw that enabled intelligent people to "logically" reject the concept of God.
This is the context of our ongoing discussion.
Euclid probably believed in the Olympian gods. So what?
Have you read an extensive commentary where Euclid used his superior intellect to support his belief in Olympian Gods? Newton has laid out why he believes in Jesus in a logical cogent fashion. Check out his extensive research regarding the prophecies in the book of Daniel. Newton was convinced by his own logic of Christ's authenticity.
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.
So you believe that if light traveled faster than 186,000 relative to an area of space, the clocks in that area would slow down. I believe you have the astronaut twin analogy confused with what I am saying. The traveling astronaut is accelerating to a point where he approaches 186,000; therefore time slows down for him.
But if the speed of light accelerated the converse would happen.
Speed of light C = 186,000 miles per sec.
Speed of light Cx5 near black hole = 930,000 miles per sec
Atomically the age of things is a relative consideration.
Correction: I wish you good luck in your anti-intellectual activities.
At some point you have to realize the mind you are dealing with is hopelessly broken, and just move on.
I have done just that, in case you haven't noticed. I've had enough of exercises in futility to last me for a while.
But the next time one of these people say to me, "It stands to reason" I'm going to laugh in his or her face.
For all the 'reason' exhibited by the ideologues on this site I should go back to being a Daoist, but it's way too late for that, I'm afraid.
Oh well, onward and upward. It's just too bad that they share in the fruit of our labor. They should have to live in the reality their irrationality creates. That would be cosmic justice.
How is the Book?
=== It's sad but funny to come back after almost a year
I think it's cool you did. Trust all is well, Stingray.
1132 posts later.
What a firestorm. I can hardly believe it.
"In physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, is clear that all complex systems are in a continual process of being reduced to less complexity."
"The second law says no such thing. You really should learn some elementary thermodynamics to avoid making such mistakes."
Actually, your own link DOES say such a thing:
(From Sears and Zemansky): 100% conversion of heat into mechanical work is not possible by any form of engine. (p. 342) There is a tendency in nature to proceed toward a state of greater molecular disorder. This one-sidedness of nature produces irreversible processes. (p. 347)
In other words, "soup" (regardless of its chemical composition) doesn't become cells, no matter how much time and energy it's given.
Remember this thread? Its nearly 5 years old now.
AAhhh...good times.
Anyone change their minds on the matter?
i’ve met perloff a few times and read his books, they are right on the mark.
Sure do. Where does the time go?
While I don't follow the crevo threads any longer I sure miss the back-and-forth good natured bantering with general_re.
AWWWW...f.christian...I miss that degenerate.
Go here to find all the usual suspects:
http://forum.darwincentral.org/
Many errors of fact by the author.
The rest is pure fantasy.
You woke up a four-year-old thread just to demonstrate how stupid you are?
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.