Skip to comments.Refuting Darwinism, point by point
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.
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.
Ha ha, he slipped up. ID'ers are supposed to pretend that ID doesn't presuppose a God, or some numbnuts thing like that.
But here the matter is out in the open -- they hate the theory of evolution because then God isn't so important.
That pretty much explains the rest of their "science" on the issue.
It is amazing how the arguments never change.
How about the same, tired, old evolutionist arguments that have been recycled for 150 years?
there are new arguments for evolution every week!
arguments for evolution have gone from "look at the beak on that birdy" to "look the bones in those old rocks are alot like the bones in those new rocks... but differant" to "look at the DNA from a monkey and look at the DNA for a man"
Creationist arguments have gone from "Your going to hell" to "Your going to hell"
If genes were rocks then you would be correct. Like stones slowly weathered into sand, genes would be eventually degraded into a completely disordered informationless state. However genes are not rocks. Genes that are degraded through mutation are eliminated through death of the individual unlucky enough to posess them. Genes that retain there usefulness are preserved through reproduction. Then the select few that become even more usefull are preferentially multiplied.
In nature, it is scientifically impossible for a less complex system, organic or inorganic, to move from the less to the more complex.
If it is so impossible how is a single fertilized egg cell able to develop into a vastly more complex adult human? You need to get your head out of the bible and into science textbooks to prevent yourself from posting more stupid posts like this.
The age of a belief does not prove its validity. It works both ways, the ancient and traditional qualities no more proves a belief than an opposing arguments modernity.
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)!
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern left wing lunatic outer fringe age of evolution!
[This ping list for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. To be included, or dropped, let me know via freepmail.]
Actually, they've gone from "You're going to Hell" to "Your going to hell". ;^)
Not much scientific fact over there, just a lot of blowhard half truths. There is lots of Evidence Disproving Evolution which cannot be talked away.
That the arguments are old does not mean they are false. In fact the argument against evolution goes back to Aristotle:
It was on the whole the former tendency (the tendency to perceive nature in discontinuous terms) that prevailed in early modern biology. In spite of the violent reaction of the astronomy, physics, and metaphysics of the Renaissance against the Aristotelian influence, in biology the doctrine of natural species continued to be potent - largely, no doubt, because it seemed to be supported by observation.
From: Lovejoy "The Great Chain of Being", pages 227-228 as quoted in Denton, "Evolution: A theory in Crises", page 354.
Yes indeed. Are we to believe the evolutionist's childish excuse that 'the dog ate the homework'?
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
The foregoing is just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated Creationism vs. Evolution threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 20].
Or 'we evolutionists do not want to hear what the other side has to say because we are close-minded bigots who will not change our minds in any way'.
"... Here at ICR?" The 6000-years-young-Earth propaganda mill? Henry Morris? Duane Gish? You're making an argument from authority based on the ICR resumé page?
This one of those "you really have to be a believer already" type of arguments.
They lose the debate on one thread, then migrate to another, calling their kin.
In a few words, the fossil record is full of gaps, more today than ever before, not transitional forms; species remain stable over millions of years, i.e. they exhibit stasis, not change; no credible mechanism of change, none, has been found. As to this latter, the Evolutionists have even tried "chance", which is flat ludicrous. Science is supposed to explain. Chance explains nothing. And on and on ... The Evolutionists have now retreated to the position of ponderously repeating that their "science" is about change over time. Well, guess what? Everything exhibits change over time. Some science.
there are new arguments for evolution every week!
With evolution new arguments NEED to be concocted weekly just to replace the old arguments for evolution which are proven fraudulent.
Duh! That's why it is such a hoot when I expose these ID'ers as theist and they yell at me for trying to drag "God" into their faux play at "science."
ID is religion, not science.
Sigh. I wish you ID guys would actually think before you post. Stop making fools of yourselves!!!!
Consider the life cycle of the snowflake. Sometimes water vapor, sometimes a raindrop, sometimes a pool of water, sometimes a complex organized structure. The molecules go from disorganized to organized and back again, over and over.
The snowflake lifecycle would seem to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics -- at least according to the ID'ers understanding (and I use that word generously.)
In fact processes on the earth are driven by solar energy and therefore it is NOT a closed system and therefore the 2nd law doesn't apply locally.
Please please please ID'ers -- read a little science, it will do you wonders.
Make an idiot-proof argument and *Univ will make a better idiot.
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.