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.
Job 2:9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.
I did, he didn't. I think God has lost his Mojo.
So9
Good idea. Let's start with Iraq.
So9
First, I'm sorry for going off on you. This subject is very close to my heart. And thank you for the congrats. Sanctity of Life week starts tomorrow and my wife, who volunteers at the local Crisis Pregnancy Center is representing both the CPC and giving our family testimony of how the boys came into our lives at our church tomorrow. Here's one great commercial everyone should see.
However, my question is genuine, and the explanation for my question will reveal one reason why I became an atheist.
Thank you for the explanation. That is truly a sad story.
As I see it, sin entered the world through one man, and not just death through that sin, but all kinds of evil, and that evil will continue to grow. But focusing on the evil is the opposite of that which we should be focusing. What about all the good in the world. God gets blamed for all the bad not doesn't get any credit for all the good.
While the death of that young boy is very tragic, that doesn't mean his example should be held up as justification for abortion or to state he would have been better off aborted. It doesn't seem fair for the boys life, but perhaps some good will come from the horrible way he died. Yes, I have a really good idea how that can come across.
You would probably not believe my life story and I'm certainly not going to share it here. But I too walked away from my faith in 1979. It would be the mother of all understatements to say that on April 3, 1991 God got my attention. Now I'm back for life. To quote Job, though he may kill me, yet I will trust in Him.
Obviously you don't have any answers to my questions either, but have instead selected a typical straw-man argument. Don't feel too badly though, I've asked a number of theologians these same sorts of questions and none has any answers for me.
That is not the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's amazing how such myths prevail despite being so easy to look up if a person really cared about not spreading untruths.
In particular, it applies to the *net* entropy of a *closed* system. Open systems can increase in entropy and there are examples of it even outside of human interventions. Crystal formation is one.
Why should you be concered with observations in thermodynamics anyway? Isn't it easier just to declare everything an act of God and leave it at that? Makes for smaller science texts too.
Lung fish? Mudskippers? Homo habilis? Australopithicus? Archeopteryx? Volvox?
Anyway despite numerous examples both living and fossilized, the interviewee effectively disarms himself by (falsely) declaring that evidence of transitional forms would have to be found in soft tissue records which don't exist. This is an effective plea of ignorance on the subject, which is probably the only truth to emerge from the interview.
Does not seem like it could have happened with a single mutation does it?Yep. And if you can't get from a unicellular to a man in one generation, you can't do that at all, either. At any rate, it looks to me to be the same logic....
As a result of all the above, I think it should be pretty clear to those who have an open mind that at no point is there a possibility that the changes necessary to achieve a transformation of the reproductive system from egg laying to mammalian live birth can be achieved in a single generation.
Note, Dan, that despite all you said back in your post 378, gore isn't attacking the mainstream science version of evolution at all. Well, why should he start now for you if he hasn't been persuaded to address the real issues in two years?
In fact, your 378 would make a fine reply to his 425, had he not posted 425 in reply to 378. That's the kind of thing I meant earlier by predicting a non sequitur response. How many times on how many threads have I rebutted a point or answered a question, only to have gore jump in and "rebut" my post with the original point/question I had been addressing?
In Holy War, there is no surrender. When you're out of bullets, you point the gun and yell "Bang!"
This is probably the most incoherent rant I've seen on this forum. Some advice--don't do what the voices in your head tell you to do.
I once decided to study embryology and went to the library. The librarian dropped an 1100 page embryology text in front of me. It's then I decided that God makes it happen and avoided a close call with actual knowledge.
But surely you aren't suggesting that Gould thinks evolution is untenable. Or that he's a Creationist.
Actually it seems that anyone who doesn't believe the world was created in 7 days is an atheist, liberal, and Taliban.
It makes you wonder what adjectives they save for the likes of Ted Bundy. Probably the same ones. You're probably an a par with serial killers too.
Was this little boy all there was? Or was he a spiritual being? Did he in fact survive death? You indicated you had been Christian. Was he a spiritual being before birth? You may want to have a look at Expecting Adam by Martha Beck.
So, which is it? Is this life not a precious commodity to be fought for, preserved and experienced, or is it something less...a mere speck in relation to the eternity we will all someday confront?
Well said...
Very nice. He sounds like the kind of gentleman I could have deep philosophical discussions with into the wee hours of the night over a good cigar and a tulip of cognac.
Only if you tied him up, poured the cognac over him and lit him with a wooden match (for the cigars of course)
So9
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.