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.

You don't know squat.

Did I upset the poor creationist? Poor baby, looks like I pushed a button that you didn't like very much.

When I talk to TRUE scientists, and they tell me that the Theory of Evolution is TRUE science, and has and continues to show promise as the answer that we are looking for, I take notice.

The ONLY ones that I see fight evolution, are A:fundamentalist Christians, who take the bible in a totally LITERAL sense, and B: IDr's, creationists, masquerading as science.

I am sorry buddy, but it seems I KNOW quite a bit more then you do, but you have a lot more FAITH then I do.

So if you had said, that "I Don't have faith in squat", well, can't argue that.

So keep your terms straight please. Or else I might upset you again.

I am sorry buddy, but it seems I KNOW quite a bit more then you do, but you have a lot more FAITH then I do.

Hey Kevin! Another blind dwarf takes a swing in the dark.

Aric: I'll bet you sassed your mom when you were littler didn't you? I hesitate to write this because it will only help your side look better, but FWIW, Kevin is an educated man who has acheived a fairly significant level of prestige through not only his skilled public profession, but also his consistency and thinking ability. You may not appreciate his position on evolutionism, but you must respect his person.

Feel free to continue ranting at the rest of us. It makes evolutionists look so highbrow.

Thank you so much for your post and for the HTML tip!

Science is silent where it is ignorant.

Er, if that were true how could it make any progress?

By the way, can you provide a definitive distinction between the anthropic principle and first algorithm?

I presume you mean my hypothesis. If so, you give me a great opportunity to try that HTML tip! At post 5445 on the big thread, I describe both in more detail.

But to sum it up, the first algorithm at biogenesis writes and powers the “bootstrap” for self-organization. The first algorithm at the big bang (inflationary model, any number of universes) is a harmonic that gives rise to fields, geometry/dimensions, particles and physical laws. The anthropic principle shrugs off astonishingly fine tuning, i.e. without the right kind of physics you don't get physicists.

but you must respect his person.

I missed that part in the original post.

And why may I ask do I have to respect his person?

Is he a priest or a bishop or something, or perhaps he is mentally disabled and therefore I should respect his climb out to where he is, or perhaps he has raised 10 adopted children all by himself?

So, why should I respect his person?

Sorry, I don't just give my respect, a person has to earn it.

And he has not given me any reason to respect him, all he is trying to do is start some sort of flamewar on something he looks to be truly clueless about. Should I respect him for that? I don't think so.

That said NOTHING about Darwin, it is a website basically saying that the theory of evolution was used as an an excuse for Immoral acts in the early parts of this century, using the socalled social darwinism theory.

Keep you sentences and facts straight please.

The fact of the matter is, that Christianity was used for this purpose as well, ever heard of the first crusades? NOT the ones against the Muslims, but those against the heretics?

Ever heard the statement "kill them all, god will sort them out?" or god will recognize his own?

If you haven't, then you need to study up a bit on your religious history. ALL things can be twisted and used for immoral uses. Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house there Michael.

2) Some say, okay, I didn't realise Darwin was the first Social Darwinist, but you still can't blame him for the Holocaust, and as a person he was not such a bad guy. True, but as I stated, Malthus's observation on population was fairly recent history when Darwin was writing, and unless you are going to claim Darwin was a deeply stupid man, ( an opinion I certainly don't hold ), he must have known the use his theory would be put to. Darwin's personal qualities also seem irrelevant to me, Hitler was nice to his dog and mistress, so what? And also, it strikes me that absolving Darwin for the crimes of other Social Darwinists, is like Dr Frankenstein saying, ' That monster I created, the killing spree it has gone on, well, it is nothing to do with me.'

Or this little snipit out of the website, he doesn't state that Darwin was a racist directly, he just says that his theory was put to use that way. Also notice that he BLAMES Darwin for all this misery, like he is PERSONALLY responsible.

So basically, we must blame Einstein for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because his theories are what made the atomic bomb possible, so it his fault and he is responsible PERSONALLY.

Or let's take that another step, the wright brothers developed aircraft and made it possible to actually fly, so they MUST be held PERSONALLY responsible for the WTC, and of course all the deaths in all the airplane crashes there ever were.

So, in order for someone NOT to be PERSONALLY responsible for the misuse of their theories, then they better keep their mouths shut about them and NOT even think about releasing their theories or else.

Does this make sense Michael? Does it really and truly make ANY kind of logical sense? If you say yes, then you are a liar.

"Wagner announced the death of the old order of aristocracy and Church, of order and rules. Not only was the old order dying, but also it deserved to die, the victim of its inherent flaws. As the old order died a New Man would replace the servile creatures of the old laws, and a New Art would become the New Man's religion. The New Man would be fearless, sensual, unconstrained, and could make the world according to his will. Wagner's dictum that the sources of Western civilization had failed was not only entirely correct, but also numbingly obvious to anyone who lived through the upheavals of 1848. But how should one respond to this? Wagner had a seductive answer: become your own god!"

"Using elements of old Norse sagas and medieval epic, Wagner cobbled together a new myth. The Norse god Wotan personifies the old order: he rules by the laws engraved on his spear, by which he himself is bound. To build his fortress Valhalla he requires the labor of the giants, and to pay the giants, he steals the treasure of the Nibelung dwarf Alberich. Alberich won the treasure with a magic ring he fashioned from the stolen Gold of the Rhine River. Wotan covets this ring, which gives its bearer world mastery, but is compelled to give it to the giants."

"Wagner's audience had no trouble recognizing in Wotan and the other immortal gods the ancient aristocracy of Empire and Church, who made a fatal compromise with capital (the Ring of world domination) and thus sealed their own doom. Siegfried (Wotan's grandson) takes the Ring back from the giant Fafner, and then shatters the god's spear and wins as his bride the immortal Valkyrie Brunnhilde. Through the rest of a silly plot full of love potions and magic disguises, Siegfried is betrayed and stabbed in the back. Brunnhilde immolates herself on Siegfried's funeral pyre and the flames burn down Valhalla as well, gods and all. A New World Order emerges on the basis of heroic will. It is not hard to see how appetizing this .. .. .. stew (( link )) = = = was for Hitler."

That said NOTHING about Darwin

Huh? It was ALL about Darwin.

Can I get your opinion of this quote taken directly from Ibid., pp. 291-292?

"It has often been said . . . that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country."

Or this, taken from Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London: John Murray, 1901), pp. 241-242.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla."

Funny, this Darwin fellow. He used to be close to God and respectful of His creation. Have you seen this, from Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Co., New York, 191 1, Vol. 1, p. 29?

"I often had to run very quickly to be on time, and from being a fleet runner was generally successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed my success to the prayers and not to my quick running, and marvelled how generally I was aided."

Still think he wasn't a religious man turned racist?

G3K has simply pointed out:
(1) the extreme complexity involved in transforming from egg laying to live bearing
(2) the unlikelihood that this could occur a step at a time and produce live offspring and
(3) the unlikelihood that random mutations could cause this change in one generation.

No, he pointed out:

(1) the IMPOSSIBILITY in transforming from egg laying to live bearing

(2) the IMPOSSIBILITY that this could occur a step at a time and produce live offspring and

(3) the IMPOSSIBILITY that random mutations could cause this change in one generation.

And he continues this despite correction. That is why he is a buffoon.

Couple of true stories - - - interpretations !

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."...Hebrews 4:12

A friends cousin lives next to a poodle 'farm' and the owner was having a problem with the neighborhood dogs raiding the poodle houses // igloos for food. Well the guy heard a ruckus and when he looked in the the dog house . . . a full grown boar came out and smashed // broke his face // nose !

The next one is not so nice !

My best friend . . . 'kahuna' - - - went home to visit his family // friends in Samoa and came back with this story...

His best friend went out to work in his taro patch and when he arrived he found a full grown boar hopelessly with his leg caught in wire fence there protecting his garden. He went over with his machete and when he got next . . . this is easy to figure out because facing extinction - - - the wire and its leg didn't matter anymore - - - the bore got loose enough to shred his stomach and the friend came home with the boar and vegetables over his shoulder but the loss of blood was so great he died - - - true story ! ! !

Hear is the interpretation .. .. ..

The garden is the truth and the fence is the lies the boar entangles itself in and if you try to help or kill the boar it will kill you and the closer you get . . . the more danger - - - you are in ! ! ! !

"For the word-TRUTH of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." John 14:27

These animals have no conscience // hope - - - DANGEROUS esp when caught in their own lies ! ! !

Matthew 7:6... "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before the swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

Hebrews 4:12..."For the word-TRUTH of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Still think he wasn't a religious man turned racist?

Darwin was an Englishman who lived and wrote in the mid 19th century. It was a time when the US, England, and Western Europe were the most civilized places on earth, when the gap between them and the rest of the world was far greater than it is now, and virtually every Englishman of that generation had similar views on race. (As did Lincoln, by the way.) To Darwin's great credit, in his book "Descent of Man," he reviewed the available evidence and refused to conclude that the negro was a separate species. This was probably a radical position for the time. So in his time, in context, Darwin was probably one of the least racist people around. Oh, he was also opposed to slavery.

In any event, his personal views on race are entirely irrelevant to the scientific value of his theory. Thomas Edison was an atheist, but does that mean your light bulbs don't work?

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.