EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Religion is probably the biggest divider in world history, but for those that believe in God it is central to our existence. Share your views.
User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » January 31st, 2005, 5:37 pm

Whys is it ok to teach evolution and the big bang theory to our children in schools but it is not ok to teach creationist theory?

After all, they're both theory's, right?

And it is our tax money, right?

If neither one is a proven fact, then why one is ok but not the other?

Godfather
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 294
Joined: January 8th, 2005, 8:39 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Godfather » January 31st, 2005, 5:39 pm

Is the creationist theory the Catholic version?

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » January 31st, 2005, 5:42 pm

Creation in General terms of INTELLEGENT DESIGN as opposed to JUST AN ACCIDENT.

Godfather
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 294
Joined: January 8th, 2005, 8:39 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Godfather » January 31st, 2005, 5:47 pm

How would intelligent design work?

User avatar
Kemosave
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1171
Joined: July 1st, 2004, 10:03 am

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Kemosave » January 31st, 2005, 10:31 pm

This is so basic, and it is just the truth. Much has been learned since and it is all pro creation. So first go read Michale Denton's A Theory in Crisis (an older book on Darwinism) and then get on board and see how far the rabbit hole goes. The general theory of Orthodox Darwinism has been proven false.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 46-0241408

User avatar
Mraka
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 812
Joined: December 9th, 2004, 2:03 pm
Location: the site I got my avatar from/www
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Mraka » February 1st, 2005, 6:41 am

It is about what we are investigating those issues.The process we are in .And we let everybody know about how science thinks that world works.
Church has taught too much BS before.

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 7:57 am

I look at the story of creation found in the bible as an analogy that humans have used to detail their coming to exist, without any of the scientific answers we have today. Evolutionary theory has holes in it, no doubt, but compared to a myth about the earth being created in 7 days and Adam and Eve originating from The Garden of Eden...it sounds logical to me. I think it's an intelligent design that we fit into, because the laws and math that govern the universe are all logical. I think if you combined Darwin's scientific approach to the relationship between single-celled life and more complex life, with the foundational belief that the laws governing the evolution are perfect, that you can let evolution and creation work together.

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 9:50 am

Cold Bear wrote:I look at the story of creation found in the bible as an analogy that humans have used to detail their coming to exist, without any of the scientific answers we have today. Evolutionary theory has holes in it, no doubt, but compared to a myth about the earth being created in 7 days and Adam and Eve originating from The Garden of Eden...it sounds logical to me. I think it's an intelligent design that we fit into, because the laws and math that govern the universe are all logical. I think if you combined Darwin's scientific approach to the relationship between single-celled life and more complex life, with the foundational belief that the laws governing the evolution are perfect, that you can let evolution and creation work together.
You're taking the 7 days creation narrative too literal, the bible is full of symbolism, it is a fact that science has proven the earth to be way older than 7,000 years, you need to understand some of the symbolism used in the bible such as the "7".
But assume either way, 7 days or thousands of years, either way the "intellegence & life factors themselves" is what has yet to be proven through evolution. Surely Darwin teached evolution "but" evolution within its own species, in other words a PUSSYCAT would be sure hard pressed to become a DAWG :wink: . Now tell me, how do you fit "logical" into evolution is my question? if not by intellegence :?

LOGICAL ACCIDENT or LOGICAL DESIGN?

I think if you combined Darwin's scientific approach to the relationship between single-celled life and more complex life, with the foundational belief that the laws governing the evolution are perfect, that you can let evolution and creation work together

I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ^^^^

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 10:12 am

That's what I said, Wolf, I said that it's an "Analogy", or a "parable" used to explain how we came to be, not to be taken literally, until science came around and told us literally. Sure, a cat can't be a dog, a ho can't be a housewife, and all that, but the basic ways that life forms progress from simple to complex and have many things in common, a COMMON DESIGN, is something to think about. For example a dog has two eyes, a mouth, a tail, four legs, and fur. A cat has the same. Out of all the ways a animal could look (three legs, all kinds of wild shit) think about how SIMILAR the dog and the cat are. But COMMON DESIGN, don't mean COMMON CREATOR. An evolution of life within the guidelines given by a logical universe is what I'm talking about here. That way you have a creator (ordered universe with laws) and evolution (development of life within those laws) at the same time, and you can stop pulling your hair out over which is true.

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 10:16 am

^^^^ ok, i hear what you're saying.

It is all debatable, correct?

So why is one allowed to be teached in schools as if it the sole interpretation, but not the other?

What are we afraid of?

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 10:20 am

Faith needs to be there otherwise it's just all facts and information with no soul. Religion should come from the house, science from the schools.

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 10:29 am

Cold Bear wrote:Faith needs to be there otherwise it's just all facts and information with no soul. Religion should come from the house, science from the schools.
The problem that i have with the science been taught in the schools is that it is teached as a complete fact and with no alternative view point being accepted, this being done with my money but i'm left with no voice in the matter. I'm not for teaching religion in school because I have my views and belief which are RADICALLY different from mainstream Christianity, and by far non-compatible with Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Shamaism, or what-have-you, so we can't be getting up on that kind of teaching.
But when it comes to teaching BASIC evolution as opposed to "SOLELY" evolution, then I have a problem in not having an ALTERNATIVE view point.

Where is the fair play in that?
Where is Democracy in that?
Where is the Parenhood in that?

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 10:38 am

I hear you on that. But you always have the option of taking kids to Church, breaking down the bible, breaking down your religion to them the way you WANT them to know it. What you feed their heads with when their young will stick with them a long time.

Just tell them, what you learn in school is for grades, what you learn from me is for life. I think they will respect that.

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 10:40 am

Cold Bear wrote:. What you feed their heads with when their young will stick with them a long time.
"Precisely my point" ^^^^
I have to compete for the minds of my offspring from an early age :(
Last edited by Lonewolf on February 1st, 2005, 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 10:47 am

As long as they know the difference between "knowledge" and "wisdom" they can learn science and also carry the religious tradition.

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 11:35 am

Cold Bear wrote:As long as they know the difference between "knowledge" and "wisdom" they can learn science and also carry the religious tradition.
"RELIGIOUS TRADITION" what is your definition of it?

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 11:52 am

Any religion is a tradition because its passed from parents to children for generation after generation. What I mean is religious tradition could be any religion, Christianity, Islam, Juduism, Rastafarianism, Buddhism, Catholicism.

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 11:56 am

You ever heard of THEOLOGY as opposed to RELIGION?

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 12:01 pm

Sure, yeah. But I don't know what you're getting at now. What are you opposed to? Religion being taught as Theology, instead of THE TRUTH? If that's the case, colleges like Notre Dame teach Theology classes as a requirement. Maybe high school could do that, I don't know. Studying the Bible and God in a scientific way.

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 12:02 pm

"10-4" ^^^^

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 12:03 pm

That's asking alot from a school system short on funds and kids worried about worldly things, ya know?

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 12:09 pm

Yet we got BILLIONS for war and are adamant about EVOLUTION as a fact (non-proven), correct?

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 12:20 pm

Well your the Republican, Lonewolf. The billions for war part is on your party, no!?
People take up behind Evolution because it is a way of looking at all of life as coming from the same source (like God) without assuming that there is a God and then you have to tell the kid which God is really God. Evolution never answers how life itself came to be. Scientists will even tell you their studies can't answer the hardest questions, like who created life. That's what the Bible is for. But through studying evolution, comes also information about other 'families' of life forms.

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 12:24 pm

The Republican comment was a joke. Don't take it too seriously. I understand your moral obligations and all that.

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 12:25 pm

Cold Bear wrote:Well your the Republican, Lonewolf. The billions for war part is on your party, no!?

. But through studying evolution, comes also information about other 'families' of life forms.


1 ~ Negative, ain't republican - i'm more of a Cristian Socialist.

2 ~ UFO life forms too?

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 12:30 pm

Ufo's. Lol.
Oh see, now you're clowning. That's a whole 'nother theory...

Socialist like what kind of socialism? Isn't religion usually forgone for the state in regular socialism? Stalin, etc.?

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 1st, 2005, 12:37 pm

Cold Bear wrote:Ufo's. Lol.
Oh see, now you're clowning. That's a whole 'nother theory...

Socialist like what kind of socialism? Isn't religion usually forgone for the state in regular socialism? Stalin, etc.?
I ain't clowning Homie, but since science teaches evolution, then the possibility comes into play, right?

About Socialism, if you go into the annals of modern history, the fisrt people whom practiced true socialism (arguably) were CHRISTIANS in the 1st Century. Now I know and agree that we "should not" place ONE BELIEF in power over others, but my Christian beleifs are more in tune with Socialist ideas, that's all.

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 1st, 2005, 12:43 pm

Oh alright you're talking about the idea that life came from another planet and then evolved here, then. Cool. I think that's called 'Panspermia'. I thought you were clowning cause I'll be on here talking about UFO theories and all that sometimes.

I'll definitely check out the Christian - Socialism connection. The only socialism I know is Stalin is all. I just haven't really looked into older places.

User avatar
Lonewolf
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 4115
Joined: June 2nd, 2004, 4:57 pm
Country: Mexico
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: Tijuana
Location: THE BORDERLAND
Contact:

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Lonewolf » February 8th, 2005, 11:20 am

Cold Bear wrote:1 - Oh alright you're talking about the idea that life came from another planet and then evolved here, then. Cool. I think that's called 'Panspermia'. I thought you were clowning cause I'll be on here talking about UFO theories and all that sometimes.

2 - I'll definitely check out the Christian - Socialism connection. The only socialism I know is Stalin is all. I just haven't really looked into older places.


1 - wether life began on earth or in some other planet, it still does not explain the LIFE & INTELLEGENCE FACTOR that evolution has failed to find and explaination to on its own.
You can tie things up to MARS is you wish, but where did LIFE ON MARS come from :?: Pluto :?:
I do beleive that we are in a quagmire on the subject of Creation or Evolution, the fact remains that for the question of LIFE & INTELLEGENCE i lean towards a CREATOR not only because it is ingrained in my heart, but also because nothing in the BIG BANG THEORY can answer the SPIRITUAL HUNGER IN MAN in its fight between GOOD & EVIL.

2 - don't be going to Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Trotsky, Fidel or any of those for TRUE SOCIALISM, those are just POLITICAL MACHINES that use a nobel idea to enslave and contol the masses.
Think about it, why did Fidel abandoned Che Guevara? Why was Trotsky assassinated? why did Mao's cultural revolution slaughtered so many of its own people? and why is Hitler considered the worst when in fact Stalin slaughtered more millions than Hitler :?:

WHY ARE SO MANY GOVERMENTS including OUR OWN are so afraid of TEACHING RELIGIOUS VALUES to our children :?:

Just about everyone in this world will tell you that the 10 Commandments are the corner stone of THE LAWS that govern SOCIETIES EVERYWHERE :!:

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Cold Bear » February 8th, 2005, 12:01 pm

1. GOOD and EVIL is subjective. Some religions don't have a concept of evil. Man's spiritual hunger is to discover the truth, and to SEEK, to FIND OUT, or to achieve COMMUNION with a higher force, his battle between Good and Evil usually comes from External pressures and sources, life experiences teach him his good and evil.
On the Life and Intelligence;
What you could be praying to as "God" could really be a universe governed by math, temperatures, laws, a 'Scientific Universe'.

2. Not gonna argue with this point. That's the same reason why many people are shook of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Religion to back up political power and structure is the problem, that's why you should separate school and church at a young age so that the kids can separate their beliefs from their logic. Don't want the opportunity to misuse a strong idea fall into the wrong hands, right?
The 10 commandments-
There are a lot of ways of 'Framing' society and how it should work. Just because the laws are there, don't mean they're followed. WE STILL in this country, live by an "Eye for an Eye", just like in Biblical times. Does it make a difference if we lethally inject a killer, or we stone him to death? The law is the same, justice is the same, but science seems like it puts one over the other.
A law is a law. The State says when you rob someone, you go to jail, when you hurt someone purposefully, you could go to jail, you f*ck with someone's property, you go to jail or pay a fine. I learned from experience what not to do.

User avatar
Kemosave
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1171
Joined: July 1st, 2004, 10:03 am

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Kemosave » March 21st, 2005, 12:41 am

I'm engaged in real research and finishing my Master's of Science at a secular university (the starving student thing) but wanted to drop in and share some real information for the sake of the Beloved as there is so much false uncited information asserted here. I assure you there is NOTHING scientific about many of these assertions and certainly not in the way they are being presented. I suppose I don't really expect more from a gang website, however, since I started here and have grown in knowledge since then I'll speak on it for the sake of the Beloved. As usual, always read the footnotes and citations and be sure to check out the suggested authors. And since I don't have the time to spend endlessly wrangling, I'll just see when you all I see you. Peace.

First, congrats to the Government Genome Project http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml for recently including the origin of life data as a subset (1).

Now, in the 1800's a man named Darwin argued that man descended from an ape-like animal through evolutionary processes and that man was nothing more than the product of evolution (i.e. descent of man & origins of species). Now while the special theory which is limited and deals with adaptation within species has held true over time the general theory which is the basis for the evolutionary worldview we see today is being systematically dismantled as the evidence has been qualified and much to the chagrin of those who have dedicated their entire lives and careers to it found to be seriously wanting.

Furthermore the wave of new discoveries that was expected to confirm the theory has not materialized in the way they had counted on and the new information that has arisen does not actually support the general theory. The failure of evolution to live up to its promises, however, has helped spur science into new frontiers and the aggregate of knowledge has increased rapidly across disciplines. New alternative secular and testable creation models have been assembled allowing scientists for the first time to scientifically test alternative hypothesis. Currently the number of new peer reviewed scientific journal article's findings are fully weighted toward these models and away from the evolutionary ones (2). Suggested reading for further information: William A. Dembski, Phillip E. Johnson, Michael A. Cremo, Michael J. Behe, George Sim Johnston, etc...

There can be no question that Darwin had nothing like sufficient evidence to establish his theory of evolution. Neither do they today and I hope to address this more in detail beyond this post at another time (when I have more time) and walk you through their models step by step. But for examples must suffice. I want to walk you through time and introduce you to how every fifty million years starting from the Permian boundary that wiped out about 95% of all life; new species suddenly appear. That post should deal with extinction replacement events and speciation. Specifically showing how millions of diverse different species of life showing up on the earth ten thousand years after millions of species that are very different from the ones we see and scientifically explaining how ten thousand years, in fact ten million years, is hopelessly inadequate to explain that by evolutionary process. So we shall consider this installment one and hope perhaps I find the time for installment two where I shall show that neither speciation nor even the most trivial type of evolution had ever actually been observed directly in nature though some speculative studies (3) have tried to show otherwise.

Darwin provided no direct evidence that natural selection had ever caused any biological change in nature. The idea of evolution on a grand scale was entirely speculative and Darwin was unable to demonstrate "infinite connecting links" the existence of which he repeatedly admitted were crucial to his theory. Which brought the question (4), if it were a real process, this type of evolution would still be occurring, and there would be a great many observable "transitional" forms around us today that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear unbridgeable gaps between the kinds (their attempts at historical reconstruction failing time after time, no truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind"). Claims to the contrary are nonsense. The world is not full of transitional forms. Darwin's model of evolution is and was only a theory, very much in doubt in the macro, and impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation.

Though outdated now in many respects, Michael Denton's 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis' gets it right when he states "The transformation of Darwinian theory into dogma is evidenced by the hostility directed towards dissidents from orthodoxy such as Klammerer in the 1920's and recently the Australian geneticist Steel for raising the possibility of Lamarckianism, and towards authorities such as the geneticist Goldschmidt and the paleontologist Schindewolf for rejecting natural selection as the major agency in macroevolution. Such hostility is readily understandable in terms of the sociology of knowledge because in the past many in the biological community considered Darwinian theory to be established beyond doubt "like the earth goes around the sun".. it is ironic to reflect that while Darwin once considered it heretical to question the immutability of species, nowadays it has been heretical to question the idea of evolution." Fortunately for all real truth seekers, many among the intellectual elite are questioning it and the resulting scientific advances are telling.

Let me give you just one of many examples of what has and is occurring. A number of biologists, chemists, zoologists, physicists, anthropologists, molecular and cell biologists, bioengineers, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists, and other scientists from Cambridge, Stanford, Cornell, Yale, Rutgers, Chicago, Princeton, Purdue, Duke, Michigan, Syracuse, Temple and Berkeley came together (including professors from Yale Graduate School, MIT, Tulane, Rice, Emory, George Mason, Lehigh, and USC) came together to tell the world one thing: they believe that modern science does not support the general theory of evolution. This was in response to a PBS seven-part television series, called Evolution, asserted that "all known scientific evidence supports Darwinian evolution" as does "virtually every reputable scientist in the world." PBS asserted untruths. So some of the top scientists came together and published a two-page advertisement in a national magazine titled "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" which you can download from here: http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php These are world class respected scientists like Nobel nominee Henry F. Schaefer (third most cited chemist in the world), James tour of Rice University's center for nanoscale Science and Technology; and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate school, etc..

And their numbers are rapidly growing. "The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is [currently] a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination." And note that a number of the signers have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution in the past. But they were "led down the primrose path" as one microbiologist put it.

Despite repeated requests, the series' producers refused to cover scientific objections to Darwinism. Instead, the producers offered only to let scientific dissenters go on camera to tell their "personal faith stories" in the last program of the series, "What About God?" According to Discovery's Chapman, "This was almost an insult to serious scientists. When you watch that last program, you realize they were wise to refuse to take part in it." This is just one example of what is now happening all over the world. Together, the top scientists in the world are coming to the conclusion that the emperor of evolution has no clothes and many don't like it.

The traditional proofs for evolution have been dismantled in recent years by many of the world's leading scientists and intellectuals coming as one scholarly peer reviewed journal and publication after another. These "icons" include studies of correlation involving morphology, the march of ape-like creatures, the Stanley Miller experiment (and every other failed attempt to prove live ever arose from a primordial soup [which is a complete dead end]), Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryos, etc.. etc.. etc..

The truth is that everyone (i.e. reputable scientists) agree that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. This occurs in the ordinary course of biological reproduction. But Darwinism claims much more than that. It's a theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago. This is what many scientists are now saying is not true.

But comparing the predictions of the Creation origin-of-life models with the most recent discoveries coming from origin-of-life research shows remarkable agreement. Life originated early and quickly in Earth's history under hostile conditions. Moreover, life as it first appeared, in its minimal form, possesses enormous complexity. None of the predictions that come from the naturalistic model are satisfied by the most recent scientific results. From a naturalistic perspective, supra-astronomical probabilities argue against the required simultaneous assembly of the molecular components needed for life to function in its most minimal form. Perhaps most devastating of all is the absence of a primordial soup on early Earth.

All evolutionary origin-of-life models that appeal exclusively to natural processes have as their chief requirement a primordial soup. Even if a primordial soup existed, however, the chemical processes supposedly taking place in the soup seem incapable of producing life. In light of the most recent scientific discoveries, the comments of Paul Davies and the quiet frustration of origin-of-life researchers seem understandable.

Now there are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life: Pinocchio and Frosty the Snowman (forgive the joke on such a serious topic but I could not resist the levity). Most scientists consider these two reports to be false. The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself, without appealing to a transcendent higher power, is not consistent with scientific observation. Seriously though, abiogenesis the emergence of life from nonliving physicochemical systems forms the core of the evolutionary paradigm. Despite the importance of biogenesis to the evolutionary paradigm, evolutionary origin-of-life researchers have failed to generate any tangible progress towards a strictly materialistic explanation for life s inception.

And many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There seems to be two reasons for their unease. First, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations. Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding. The behind-the-scenes frustration of the origin-of-life research community was clearly evident at ISSOL 99.6 The 9th meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life combined with the 12th International Conference of the Origin of Life at the University of California in San Diego in July 1999. This joint scientific meeting, held every three years, attracts the most prominent origin-of life investigators from around the world and serves as a platform for sharing their latest findings. The mood there was grim.

Again, given the recent developments in cosmology, astronomy and physics, we are led to consider an additional scenario, the Biblical creation scenario. And if the new testable creation models stay consistent with the scientific evidence, which to date they certainly have been, then it deserves to be considered a legitimate, scientific alternative to evolution regardless of the implications it has to non-Biblical worldviews and philosophies. The aggregate of scientific information, statistically showed by following the number and direction of peer reviewed scientific journal articles and pubs for example, is moving away from no creator to that of a Creator. And the harmony between the Bible's account of the origin of life and nature's record provide powerful evidence for it's validity while the lack of concordance between the naturalistic model for life's origin and the scientific data causes one of the key pillars of the theory of evolution to crumble.

Once a reasonable, testable case has been made for the supernatural origin of life, the door is open to view other areas of the biological realm from a supernatural standpoint as well. In addition to demonstrating the truthfulness of Scripture, recent discoveries show how the Biblical account of origins can contribute to scientific research. By offering the Biblical account of life's origin in a form that invites scientific testing, it becomes clear that the study of creation is science. Testable creation models approach to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the major categories of life, and the origin and spread of humanity allows scientists to make a unique contribution to the question of origins allowing for supernatural explanations. I would love to go much more into this with you in so many scientific ways but I lack time and space so let's just pick up with the current "fun topic" of the board which is the origin of humanity.

Now as more and more fossils become less and less important, and what is becoming of chief interest for a number of anthropologists is molecular anthropology or the use of genetic information among living human population groups today to extract an understanding of humanity's origins. And from similarities and differences in gene sequences and by looking at the extent of those differences we can get an understanding of the date of humanity's origin, the location of humanity's origin, the original population size, and the pattern of humanity's spread. The principles behind this are relatively easy to understand. The differences in gene sequences among human beings is due to mutations. These mutations presumably can accrue at a constant rate if the region of DNA is not under the influence of natural selection. This is called the molecular clock hypothesis. Therefore if two populations separate from an ancestral population, they are going to be different over time due to these mutations. The greater the number of mutations the greater amount of time they separated from the ancestral population. By looking at the pattern of similarities and differences with respect to a large number of populations we can begin to identify how population groups relate to each other in this ancestral descendent fashion and then we can work backwards using this molecular clock approach to a date for the first human population. The principle is simple but the mathematical modeling behind it is rather complex. This is but one in an ensemble of modern techniques that are being applied to molecular anthropology.

For example, in the case of genetic diversity, what is startling about humanity's genetic diversity is how limited is. In fact, the genetic diversity among humans (even though we are a global species) is the most limited of any species we are aware of. In fact, the genetic diversity of the entire human population is about a factor of six times less than a single tribe of mountain gorillas. Which means that humanity must have a recent origin because the diversities due to mutations show there hasn't been a lot of time for these mutations to accrue but not only that humanity must have had a recent origin from a small number of individuals that quickly expanded to fill the globe. Now the origin of humanity is typically placed in Africa in the region of East Africa.

Now while genetic diversity is one of the first techniques applied to the question of human origins, it is now being applied as a technique with respect to the question of human origins as a result of the human genome project. Their is a program being launched where the goal is to characterize the genetic diversity within the entire human genome for representatives of different population groups with the idea that this understanding is going to help identify where there are defective genes that correlate with the onset of certain genetic disorders. As a result, it has become recognized that the genetic diversity among humanity is extremely limited and though the genetic diversity is potentially quite large because of the large population of the entire human population group, which again reinforces the results that humanity had a recent origin with a small number of individuals that expanded rapidly.

Now mitochondrial DNA (bean shaped cells found in our body involved in energy production) to date the origin of humanity. The reason this is done is because the mitochondrial DNA in our body comes exclusively from the maternal lineage (very clean inheritance). Using this technique, humanity dates about 150,000 years ago to a small number of women to a single woman in East Africa (called mitochondrial Eve).

Now in calibrating the molecular clock we find the clock is not as fine tuned as we would like it to be. Examples would be some parts of the mitochondrial DNA are operating under the influence of natural selection and no longer legitimate molecular clocks and radiation in the environment that varies can influence mutation rates. So while we know the approximate date of the origin of humanity within parameters, the exact date must be taken with a grain of salt as they say.

Another technique is y chromosomal analysis tracing the paternal lineage (i.e. men) and gives results very similar results as the mitochondrial method. This method shows that humanity originates under 150,000 years ago to a small population of men to a single individual male (called Y chromosal Adam). Microchondrial DNA supports this. Pseudo genes, show qualitively the same thing. So do other methods and studies give similar results. Parasites, like body lice for example, that affect humans are now being studied as well and their origins date less than 150,000 years ago (body lice less than 70,000 years ago from a single location and again show a spread from near the Middle East). And again all of these, within the limitations of the individual techniques, all show the same result: A recent origin of humanity from a single location from a small population of men and women and humanity is traceable back to a single man and a single woman. Definitely these studies provide a powerful confirmation in the broad sense of Biblical understanding of humanity's origin.

As has already been shown, what is becoming very apparent to most within the anthropological community is that modern human behavior is a recent phenomena that dates in the neighborhood of 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and this behavior shows up explosively not gradually virtually out of nowhere. In "Africa Exodus" Christopher Stringer says "before then homo sapiens [not modern humans but hominids distinct from modern humans such as Rhodesian man for example] were simply marking time culturally. For millennia upon millennia they were churning out the same forms of stone utensils but about 40,000 years ago a perceptible shift in the handiwork took place. Toolkits, ropes, harpoons, fish hooks, weapon sophistication, along with the sudden manifestation (called the big bang of art by scientists) of sculptures, art, religious symbols, sophisticated jewelry, musical instruments, long distance exchange.. it is an extraordinary catalogue of achievements that seem to come from nowhere." In other words what Christopher is saying is that you have these hominids in the fossil record that had some very crude culture and technology but it was extremely crude, roughly chiseled rocks for example, and stagnant for hundreds of thousands of years and when modern humans appear on the scene virtually out of nowhere there is an explosion of sophistication with respect to their behavior. No other hominid in the fossil record or archeological record except modern humans display artistic expression period and this artwork when it appears is as sophisticated (i.e. imagination and symbolic thought) as some artwork in museums today. The record shows no gradual evolution of skills between the two ancient hominids (such as Neanderthal man) and modern humans.

There are anthropologists that are arguing now some switch flipped that led to the appearance of modern human behavior. Now this is quite out of the ordinary and beyond remarkable to contemplate from an evolutionary perspective how sudden dramatic mutation would suddenly happen producing something as elegant as the human brain but this is exactly what you would expect to see in the archeological record from a Biblical perspective if indeed man is created in God's image with the first expression of that image coming in the form of Adam and Eve at or under 100,000 years ago.

I could go on for a long time and discuss various testable models other than the evolutionary model such as the 'Out of Africa Model' also called the 'Garden of Eden Model' but let's review one more time by looking at their main competitor called the 'Multi-Regional Hypothesis' which was quite popular until the mid 90's arguing the simultaneous evolution of humanity over a span of two million years looking at all the hominids in the fossil record evolving over time in a collective fashion towards modern humans. Now there has been some very powerful work done that destroys this hypothesis and much of that work centers on the question of who were the Neanderthals which date around 150,000 to 130,000 years ago and existed primarily around Europe and Western Asia. Now Neanderthals do share physical similarities with modern humans and because of this and the timing of their appearance many viewed them as being a key transitional intermediate giving rise to modern humans. But in addition to their physical similarities there is a long laundry list of critical anatomical differences such as brain structure and skull structure (check the National Academy of Sciences papers showing the example specifically) for example. And this has been confirmed by some incredibly elegant studies done fairly recently by independent teams of researchers who isolated mitochondrial DNA from five separate Neanderthal remains that span the time frame and range from when and which Neanderthals existed. The results tell us there is a dramatic difference between the Neanderthal genetic sequence and the human genetic sequence showing that Neanderthals could not have given rise to modern humans.

Again, a genetic study that looked at y chromosal DNA showed Asian and oceanic people did not arise from homo erectus but are connected to African population groups. This shows the chief competitor to the 'Out of Africa Model' or the 'Garden of Eden Model' called the 'Multi-regional Hypothesis' as being dismantled (i.e. scientifically disproved).

We now have the chimpanzee and the human genomes sequenced (thank you human genome project!). And with this data in place, we are hearing now of the biological differences between the two (including reduced percentages in genetic similarity that open the question what else is in the DNA is different) which is pointing toward the Creation Models and away from the Evolutionary Models and fully expected to continue.

Let's discuss the language gene. Genetic mutations in this gene lead to language disorders and inability to grasp grammar, rules of syntax, muscles around the tongue, in the brain, etc.. Now it turns out that this particular gene has undergone very little if any mutation over the course of the last 50,000+ years from an evolutionary perspective. When you look at a large number of different mammals this gene is essentially the same gene, but when you look at this gene in humans you see it is different. There are three amino acids in humans from the protein causing the protein to have a different shape and now the protein plays a very different role in brain development. Evolutionists are arguing that this is the gene that gave rise to human speech but it doesn't work because you can't suddenly get a perfect design by strictly evolutionary means in a gene that has been resistant to mutations for the last 50 million years! And that these just right mutations occur in the just right way that produce a completely different protein, in essence, that now is able to regulate the development of incredibly complex brain structures that are necessary to support human language capacity. It almost looks like to me that a Creator was involved in reengineering a particular gene to provide language capacity for humans.

There many gene profiles like this that are continually misinterpreted by evolutionists. Another example would be the gene that leads to the complex structure of a large cerebral complex. Many genes throughout the body show the same differences and no evolutionary appearance. What has become quite evident is that the gene expression pattern in humans is different than other primates in a way that the evolutionary model cannot account for. A Creation Model might show how the Creator uses building blocks to build different forms. So the latest scientific studies support the Biblical view of humanity. I also suggest that if you have not yet studied intelligent design, you begin now.

First, without designed and coded information, a life form is useless. The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by intelligent information and commands that do not reside in the atoms and molecules of these chemicals. Mendel’s’ law of genetics prove that variation can occur within a species, but cannot create a new species across phylum boundaries. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, such as the large muscles of a weightlifter to his son. Natural selection cannot create new genes, it can only select from existing gene information nation. Dogs remain dogs, and cats remain cats. Mutations are now the only possible explanation for evolution, yet rarely has any mutation been Proven to be beneficial to any organism in its natural environment. Almost all observed mutations are harmful and many are fatal.. There is no known mutation that has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than any of its ancestors (5).

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry. Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders? And it is important to note that as our understanding of DNA has improved that 90% shows marked variance in any event. Similarities—whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else—are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process? The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs" (6).

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas. There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach. And the abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudo genes." However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions. Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code. It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the so called "pseudo genes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the so called "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudo genes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists. At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

Discussing the Cambrian explosion and how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate—that is, the first fish—with its hard parts all on the inside, the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.
Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same! That is because virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . . So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees and fantasy computer generated images and evolution based database software programs from fossils of organisms which didn't change during their durations?

The answer is, they simply surmised. Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees—fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner—new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times. As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent to the time when humans and chimpanzees supposedly diverged from a common ancestor. In fact, the root points in the tree of life they have "constructed" are, in the very words of those whose job it is to work on it; "highly controversial." But then at least they are scientists of one ilk or another and not public broadcasters.

Anthropologists have supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

"The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories." Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination. Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism."

The comprehensive scientific evidence, contrary to the commonly held view that humans have evolved from an ape-like ancestor, supports the Biblical scenario for man’s origin as described in Genesis 1. It is clear that human evolution has not been established as a scientific fact. To declare evolution as a fact, and to only examine data in light of evolutionary theory, is counter to the way that the scientific enterprise is conducted and reflects a philosophical position masquerading as science. Modern cosmology and physics have allowed for the introduction of possible supernatural explanations and when taken as a whole, the scientific evidence more closely agrees with the Biblical scenario. In fact, the paleontologic evidence fails to establish a clearly defined evolutionary pathway with readily recognized transitions. Moreover, the evolutionary paradigm cannot explain the sudden, recent appearance of modern man on earth with no evidence for an evolutionary ancestor.
So the hominids we see in the fossil record are real. These are animals that existed in Earth's history and we can understand the biology through the fossil and geological record and the dates for the timing of these hominids existence.

Beloved, there is much more information to share with you but I grow tired so will end this post and submit a reliable and very important scientific journal article addressing the subject further. Don't be fooled by those who extol the "primrose path" of evolutionary theory. Especially those who read lots of books from the bookstore in between getting high and then asserting hypothesis as if it is somehow undeniable fact on weak minded people who don't know the difference. This has nothing to do with real science. I have all of my citations for this post stored neatly away. But you will find that is rare outside of the intellectual community. Always qualify their assertions and ask for sources so that you can examine them. Ask them to cite their references. Don't let them off the hook for any assertions that don't sound right. Hold them accountable for what they say. And don't forget that among them are some sick people who don't even know they are sick. Now read Psalm 8 and understand as David did, that though the universe seems vast and man seems insignificant that man has total significance as the crown of creation made in God's image and given dominion over the earth. Peace.

---------------------------------

(1) Though their inclusion is meant in the genetic application the topic, in the general sense, is best referred to as 'multiple origins of life' since modern hypothesis based on the most current information actually refers to the introduction of life onto the planet, its extinction, and then reintroduction of new forms. The most modern information we have shows life was introduced into hostile conditions repeatedly until suddenly we see a sudden appearance of 'complex in its minimal form life' showing chemical features of design. The earliest life shows 12C-enriched carbonaceous deposits 3.86 billion years old and fossils from 3.6 billion years ago (these were like photosynthetic cyanobacteria). Frequent impacts would wipe the earth off life and it would be reintroduced. These frustrating events, impacts, about 30 averaging 10 million years apart powerful enough to melt the crust points to multiple origins of life (especially for life to be here immediately afterward from 3.5-3.9 billion years ago [suggesting deliberate introduction knowing the last killer asteroid had already hit and note random chemistry arguments have real trouble with life appearing in a few million years unless its production is hardwired into the fabric of physical and chemical law, which by the way is NOT very random either]). Evolution would require that through random, chance processes, inorganic materials would gather in such a way to create organic materials capable of replicating themselves. This process would require immense amounts of time in order to occur, and not only time, but protection against destructive forces acting on the material that was to become life.

This process is the reverse of what we know as fact as far as the 2nd law of thermodynamics is concerned. Naturalistic evolution requires that through known, proven physical laws atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial ordered arrangements all by chance, and all without intelligent ordering of energy or information causing the change. Over the long periods of time necessary for evolution to occur, these early chance chemical combinations would be bombarded by cosmic rays, radioactive enough to destroy whatever is exposed. This raw energy is absolutely useless to these early chemicals because they have no means to process this energy in any meaningful way. Photosynthesis may be how plants process sunlight, but we're talking about a time before even the first cell; after all, plants have genetic information that programs certain cells in them in how to process this incoming light. Our first primordial cell would have no such mechanism built in yet to process ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, evolution cannot have occurred.

If by chance this pre-organic material formed on the surface of the earth, it would still find it impossible to become a life form for two reasons. Before the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere, cosmic rays would destroy all life forms on the planet, for it is oxygen that is Ozone, O3. If there was an oxygen atmosphere, which might produce ozone, then oxidation would occur and destroy whatever is floating around. These forces would be the most important factors on whether life would evolve here. If a life form did evolve, it would have to evolve with many existing functions the first time. A life form needs a mouth, a digestive system, a method of locomotion, and reproductive organs. Just examining the extreme complexity of these mechanisms should stop the argument here. Let me break it down for you: The most current information in the subset shows that life first appeared in hostile conditions, no primordial soup existed, and the fossil record depicts the creation, stasis, then extinction of millions of species. When a species appears, it is fully-formed, completely embedded in an interdependent ecological system, and devoid of "transitional features."

(2) Understand there is more than one evolutionary model. See "A House Divided" by Henry M. Morris, PhD, "The Darwin Wars" by Andrew Brown, "The Patterns of Evolution" by Eldredge. Although evolutionists close ranks when doing battle with creationists, they wrangle bitterly among themselves. The most publicized battle at present is between the neo-Darwinians and the punctuationists. Richard Dawkins (of Cambridge University in England) is the best-known protagonist for the neo-Darwinists and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University for the punctuationists. If space permitted, these internal squabbles among biologists could be elaborated at great length. Similar bitter in-house arguments are common among evolutionary geologists and especially evolutionary astronomers.

(3) Such as the classic "proof" of evolution involving the observed color shift in the population of England's peppered moths. Pictures of dark and light peppered moths on various tree trunks have appeared in every biology textbook. It's on the tip of the tongues of evolutionary spokesmen worldwide. Here's the well-told scenario. In the early 1800s, nearly all of the individual peppered moths (Biston betularia) were of a light grey, speckled color. Active mostly at night, they needed to hide by day from predatory birds. Since trees and rocks were typically covered with mottled light green, gray lichens, the moths were effectively camouflaged. A rare peppered moth exhibited a dark color and was easily seen by birds; thus they seldom survived. On average, over 98% of all the species were of the light variety, yet with both dark and light were of the same species and were fully interfertile. Then came the industrial revolution and the air filled with soot, covering the trees and rocks with a toxic film, killing the lichens and darkening the trees. Soon the light variety of moth was easily seen while the darker were camouflaged. By the turn of the century, 98% of the moths were dark. When English medical doctor Bernard Kettlewell studied the phenomena in the 1950s, it became "Darwin's Missing Evidence"—natural selection in action.

But creationists were never concerned with this population shift. In fact, they were amused as evolutionists made such a big fuss over it. If this is the best "proof" of evolution, then evolution is without proof. Remember that both varieties were present at the start, with the mix of genes producing lights favored over the mix of genes producing darks. As the environment changed, the dark variety had greater opportunity to pass on their genetic mix, and percentages changed. All the while, the two types were interfertile. No new genes were produced, and certainly no new species resulted. This is natural selection in action, but not evolution. Adaptation happens, but the changes are limited. The textbooks seldom point out that in recent decades, as England has cleaned its atmosphere, the shift has reversed and now the lights are the more common form once again. Remember, this shift and shift back again have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of moths, or how moths and people could share a common ancestor. And now comes the revelation that Kettlewell's compelling argument has not been verified by other investigators (Nature, vol. 396, November 5, 1998, pp. 35,36).
Furthermore, we now know that neither dark nor light moths ever spend their days on exposed tree trunks or rocks as depicted in the famous textbook pictures. His original associates have even admitted that the photographs were faked, that the moths were glued onto the tree. Thus the star witness for evolution has perjured itself, and knowledgeable evolutionists are recommending it not be used.

(4) Far too many to include here but let me expand on the example given. Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: ". . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed. The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science."

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved. Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils—after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

So, instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world. So they simply surmised them and built their models on wishful thinking (i.e. They violated principles such as causation while masquerading otherwise to a populace that did not know the difference). They sold their theory as fact because they wanted it to be true not because it is true. And they persecuted those among their peers that saw it differently.

(5) Over 80 years of fruit fly experiments involving 3000 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. DNA causes variation and change in life and stores enough information to fill 1000 books, each with 500 pages of fine print. Even the DNA of a small bacterium is composed of 3 million units all aligned in a very precise meaningful sequence. It is a mathematical impossibility for a random chance arrangement of molecules to arrange itself in the form of a DNA helix. According to Dr. John Grebe, "The 15000 or more atoms of the individual sub-assemblies of a single DNA molecule, if left to chance as required by the evolutionary theory, would go together in any of the 10^87, (10 followed by 87 zeroes), different ways. It is like throwing 15000 pairs of dice at one time to determine what specific molecule to make; and to test each one for the survival of the fittest until the one out of 10^87 different possibilities is proven by survival of the fittest is proven to be the right one." And 20 billion years isn't enough time. Mathematician I. L. Cohen says, "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between evolutionists and creationists should have come to a screeching halt. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today." Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle agrees with creationists on this point. He said the odds that a cell is formed by chance is equal to the odds that a tornado going through a junkyard would create a working 747 with all instruments working. Science has discovered no proof that animals or plants can evolve. The best established facts of genetics, biology, and botany studies indicate evolution is physically impossible.

(6) Beyond that likes the most fundamental laws of nature such as the law of increasing entropy also known as the second law of thermodynamics. This law stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems—in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found—not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles. The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists—that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw? Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent. This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. Yet again, mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Now evolution is a dying theory and a belief system. It is not a fact. In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists as well as the many renown secular scientists who have in the past few years abandoned the dying model of Darwinism. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks and biased assertions. The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic belief system. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable. Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that: "Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations." A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of just so stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks which are then passed into the hands of unknowing children. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist says:

"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about." Henry Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions. A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

"And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary."

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

"Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth." Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern." Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today. And it just goes on and on and on like this.
Last edited by Kemosave on March 22nd, 2005, 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kemosave
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1171
Joined: July 1st, 2004, 10:03 am

Re: EVOLUTION ~vs~ CREATION

Unread post by Kemosave » March 21st, 2005, 12:50 am

Introduction:

The recent decision of the Kansas State School Board to no longer include questions about biological, stellar and cosmic evolution (including the big bang) in statewide student evaluation testing is being viewed by many to eventually result in the elimination of biological evolution from the state’s science curriculum.1-4 Unfortunately, it will likely lead to a reduction of quality science education in general. In response to this development, Time magazine, in its August 23, 1999 issue, ran, as its cover story, a piece on "amazing new discoveries" that add to the already "convincing" evidence that human beings evolved from an ape-like ancestor over the course of the last 4 to 6 million years. 5 The article’s opening tone is condescending to "creationists and their intellectual allies." The writers of this piece would have the readers believe that it is all but a foregone conclusion from the scientific evidence that man is nothing more than the latest ape to be ‘served up on the evolutionary palette’. In support of this, the authors of the piece site four recently discovered hominid ‘species’ to support this assertion. However, we find this piece to be unbalanced. The importance and the general response of paleoanthropologists to these newly identified species are exaggerated by the authors of the Time article. Moreover, several recent important discoveries that create problems for the evolutionary paradigm of man’s origins are not even mentioned. This leads to the questions, "does the scientific evidence really provide wholesale support for human evolution?" "Is the creationist view of man’s origin really anti-scientific and anti-intellectual?"

At Reasons To Believe, we maintain that the facts and record of nature and the Bible are not complementary forms of truth that never overlap, as Stephen Jay Gould asserts, but rather, are in complete harmony and are, in actuality, integrated forms of truth.6 If God, the Creator, is responsible for the words of the Bible then nature’s record, as correctly interpreted through scientific study, should never disagree with the words of the Bible, as correctly interpreted through theological study. In fact, the Christian view is that God has revealed Himself to man not only through special revelation, but also through His creation. 7 If there is a disagreement between science and theology, it is due to a faulty interpretation from either one or both accounts. If after careful re-examination of both interpretations, the scientific record and the Bible do not agree, it would be fair to conclude that the Bible is not true. However, if after careful re-examination of both interpretations, the Bible is found to be true, our only rational response is to embrace its message and accept Jesus Christ as our Savior and acknowledge Him as having control over our lives.

The Bible invites its readers to put it to the test.8 It is in this context that we will examine the bipedal primate fossil record (or what secular paleoanthropologists call the hominid fossil record) and most recent biochemical studies concerning modern man’s origin. In doing so we will openly put the Bible to the test. Likewise, we will put the evolutionary paradigm with respect to man’s origins to the test. We agree with the editors of Nature magazine, that the interrogation of nature using the scientific method will help settle the creation-evolution controversy.9 Likewise, we would add that continued interrogation of Scripture using proper exegetical methodology will go far in settling this debate. Contrary to the opinion of the editors of Nature, we do not regard the doctrine of divine creation as dogmatic, but consider it to be a rational conclusion that results from examination of the scientific evidence. Divine creation is supported by scientific evidence and will continue to find support from on-going scientific discoveries and advances. We maintain that a proper reading of the Bible text of Genesis 1:26-27, and an objective, non-theory-laden view of the scientific evidence are in complete agreement, thereby providing strong support for the validity of the biblical view of man’s beginnings. Likewise we question whether a natural evolutionary interpretation of the data pertaining to man’s origins finds similar support.

As we will demonstrate, the creationist view of man’s origins is scientifically justified, and in no way threatens the integrity of science education.

Philosophical Considerations:

It is odd that adherents to biological evolutionary theory continue to assert that natural process evolution is a fact. (We define biological evolution to mean macroevolutionary changes in which one species gives rise to another distinct species. We want to avoid the intellectual sleight of hand that is used time and time again, in which all agree that change is a fact of nature, and from this point wind up at the conclusion that biological macroevolutionary change independent of supernatural intervention is a fact.10) The insistence that evolution is a fact is contrary to the very nature of science. Theories are always subjected to on-going scrutiny and testing regardless of how successful and widely regarded they are. Even though we accept a given theory as the best of all possible explanations, and use it as a framework to interpret our results, we are continually evaluating its validity. If not for this approach, quantum mechanics and relativity would never have been born. Rather, we still would be declaring Newtonian mechanics to be a fact - the theory being how to get certain observations to fit within its tenets.

In the case of cosmology, we have the ideal model of how this process works with respect to origins research. Throughout the last century, there have been many ideas proposed for the origin of the universe with each model gaining popularity in its time only to be discarded as new observational and theoretical evidence emerged. The big bang has not been declared to be a fact, with the subsequent theories designed to demonstrate how it occurred. The big bang has emerged as the model for the universe’s beginning through arduous testing with the oscillating universe and steady state theories (and others) falling by the wayside.11 Furthermore, the big bang model has gained wide-scale acceptance in spite of its clear theological implications. These theological implications are prompting some workers to come up with alternatives to the big bang. The big bang is withstanding these challenges.12 Those scientists who do oppose the big bang, do so for philosophical more so than for scientific reasons.13 Has research stopped in cosmology because the big bang reveals the necessity of a Creator? Hardly.

Given the most recent discoveries in cosmology regarding the universe’s transcendent beginning (i.e. independent of matter, energy, space and time), the design features of the universe and the research supporting the anthropic principle, it is odd that many scientists resist appealing to supernatural causes to explain phenomena in the material world. This refusal is an a priori philosophical position. It is not a demand of the scientific process. In fact, nearly all of the earliest modern scientists, were first, and foremost, Christians. These early pioneers gave birth to and nurtured modern science because of their Christian world-view.14,15 The evidence from cosmology indicates the necessity of a supernatural, transcendent Creator. If this is so, we should respond to the evidence and accommodate possible supernatural explanations in other scientific areas.
With respect to human origins, evolutionary biologists have made an a priori philosophical commitment to a strictly naturalistic explanation based primarily on a neo-Darwinian evolutionary paradigm. Moreover, many of these scientists refuse to use newly discovered data to evaluate the theory of Darwinian evolution. When the data is enigmatic and contradicts the theory of evolution, no consideration is given to the possibility that the theory may be wrong. Instead, these workers go through intellectual contortions to make the data fit the theory. This is an important point to keep in mind during this discussion. At the end of the day, we all have biases that we bring to the table. No scientist is completely objective. Honest scholarship demands that these biases be clearly communicated and taken into consideration at all times.

Outside of astronomy, the question of origins is not science, but rather history. Origins research seeks to recount the events of a unique, one-time occurrence in the past. With the exception of astronomy, the opportunity to design and repeat carefully controlled experiments is not available to those engaged in deciphering origins. The approach to the problem, must be one in which possible scenarios are proposed and evaluated based on the available observational and historical evidence. The scenario which best fits all the data becomes the most likely sequence of events. It is a weight-of-evidence approach. New discoveries help to evaluate the likelihood of the available scenarios. However, the evidence in all totality must be considered even in the light of new discoveries. Scenarios can be falsified, but never conclusively proven true. Moreover, we would expect to see certain pieces of evidence for each scenario. In this respect, there is a predictive component to origins research.

The Scenarios for Man’s Origin:

To date, most scientists, and much of the general public, have accepted only one scenario for human origins, namely, the evolutionary scenario. With it being the only scenario under consideration, it is not surprising that many scientists regard human evolution as a fact. Again, given the recent developments in cosmology, astronomy and physics, we are led to consider an additional scenario, the biblical scenario. If the biblical scenario is truly without merit, it will not be supported by the scientific data and can be discarded. However, if it is consistent with the scientific evidence, then it deserves to be considered as a legitimate, scientific alternative to evolution regardless of the implications it has to non-Christian worldviews and philosophies.

The Evolutionary Scenario:16

The current theories of human evolution describe modern humans as emerging gradually from more primitive bipedal primates through Darwinian processes. Australopithecus, which appears in the fossil record about 4.4 to 1.5 million years ago throughout eastern Africa, is the first bipedal primate genus that is thought to have directly led to modern humans. Australopithecus comprises a diverse group of small-brained extinct bipedal species that were confined to the savannas of Africa. Over time, it is thought that this genus gave way to the genus Homo. Among paleoanthropologists, there is no consensus as to which australopithecine species gave rise to Homo. Nor are there clearly established evolutionary relationships among numerous Australopithecus and Paranthropus species. Homo first appears in the fossil record about 2 million years ago with the appearance of Homo habilis in eastern Africa. As pointed out in the Time article17, human evolution is not thought to have occurred via the simple progression of improved hominid species over time, but rather involved a menagerie of ape-like animals involved in an "elimination tournament" all vying for survival and dominance. As with the australopithecines, there is no consensus model for evolutionary relationships among Homo, and no acknowledged direct ancestor to Homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans).

The Biblical Scenario:18

The creation account of man in Genesis 1:26-27 states, "Let us make (asah) man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God, he created (bara) him; male and female he created (bara) them.

The words in parentheses are the ancient Hebrew words that are translated into English as the word create. The Hebrew definitions of these words have direct bearing on this discussion.19

Asah - to make, create. It is used in the sense of fashioning an already created object.

Bara - to create, bring about, to bring into existence out of nothing. Indicates a new creative act not a refashioning of an existing object.

The creation of man is described using two different verbs in the Hebrew. One verb (asah) means to fashion using a substance already in existence. The other verb (bara) means to bring something into existence that never existed before. We would suggest that the verb asah accounts for man's biochemical and morphological similarity to other primates.20 While the verb bara considers man's unique qualities, such as awareness of absolute right and wrong, concern about death and beyond, a tendency towards worship of that which is outside of nature, and self-awareness. These spiritual qualities cause man to bear God's image and give man his unique standing among all living creatures in the animal kingdom. They were unique, miraculous creations of God, created as fully developed human beings, with DNA distinct from any creature. While humans may have shared physical similarities with other creatures, they were not simply hominids with a spirit.

Biblical dating of man’s origins using genealogies in Genesis puts his first appearance at tens of thousands of years ago, but no later. These genealogies are incomplete but adequate for their intended purposes in the text. The biblical account describes humans as originating from a single geographical region. Moreover, it requires the sudden appearance of modern man in the fossil and archeological record and no clear connection with any other bipedal primate. (This does not mean that man does not share anatomical or biochemical features in common with hominids, but rather that there is no clear evolutionary connection to other hominids.)

The Biblical Perspective on the Hominids:21

We view the hominids assigned to Australopithecus and Paranthropus as being ape-like creatures that possessed an intelligence, will and emotion. The australopithecines had some form of bipedal capability and quite possibly used crude tools. These ape-like mammals were present on the earth from around 4.5 million years ago until about 1.5 million years ago when they went extinct. Likewise, we regard the hominids assigned to early Homo, such as Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo hedeilbergensis, and Homo neandertalensis, as being upright walking primates that possessed intelligence, will and emotion. There is no evidence that these animals possessed a spirit, since no religious activity can be seen in the archeological record for these animals. Although these animals used tools, the tool kits used, even by Neandertals, were not as sophisticated as those used by modern humans. Moreover, Neandertals showed different behavior and in all likelihood did not possess language capacity.22 While not specifically alluded to in the text of Genesis 1, the hominids creation is encompassed by the Day Six Creation events in which the nepes or animals with will, emotion and intelligence are created. 23

The Scientific Evidence:

With two general scenarios for man’s origins outlined, we now turn to the scientific evidence to determine which scenario best accommodates all the evidence.

Contrary to the claims of some Creationists, we find that there is ample evidence from the fossil and archeological evidence for the existence of bipedal primates species dating back to 4.5 million years ago.24, 25 The dates and ages of the hominid fossils are not widely disputed in the scientific community. We share this view. We do not take the position that the examples of Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man call into question the validity of the entire hominid fossil record and the existence of the now extinct bipedal hominids. In fact, we will demonstrate that the reality and reliability of the fossil record, along with work in molecular genetics provides powerful support for the biblical scenario for the origin of humans and call into question the evolutionary scenario. However, as we will demonstrate, Nebraska Man is an extreme example that, in dramatic fashion, points out the problems associated with the drastically incomplete and fragmentary nature of the hominid fossil finds.

The nomenclature used by paleoanthropologists when discussing bipedal primates can be misleading. These scientists often refer to all the members of the genuses Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as human. This is unfortunate. In our experience, we have noted that those not familiar with this practice commonly misinterpret this to indicate that the scientific evidence places human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) as far back as 4.5 million years ago. In the process, the marked morphological and behavioral differences between the extinct hominids and modern man are not clearly noted. Even more confusing is the practice of some paleoanthropologists to refer to all Homo species including Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis / ’Archaic" Homo sapiens, Homo neandertalensis as Homo sapiens. This practice reflects in part the bias of many paleoanthropologists towards a naturalistic view of mankind’s origin and leads to the misperception that human evolution has a stronger basis in fact than is actually indicated by the data. In this paper we will use the term human to refer strictly to Homo sapiens sapiens, which first appear in the fossil record less than 100,000 years ago.

Is It Possible To Declare Human Evolution As A Fact?

It is widely acknowledged that the fossil record is incomplete. Yet many paleontologists hold that while incomplete, the fossil record is generally adequate enough to discern patterns such as stasis and absence of gradual evolutionary trends. 26 The hominid fossil record, too, is incomplete, but it is questionable if the hominid fossil record is adequate to discern clear phylogenetic relationships. Most hominid fossil discoveries are partial crania, partial jaws, isolated teeth and/or occasionally isolated limbs.27, 28 It is very rare for paleoanthropologists to find a complete cranium, let alone a complete skeleton. Moreover, very few of the extinct hominid species are known from a large number of samples. In most cases, there are a limited number of specimens that are attributed to a given hominid species. Further compounding this problem, is the fact that the hominid remains often have been crushed, shattered, and deformed prior to fossilization or through geological processes. (See below for a further discussion on the particular problems associated with cranial fossils and their use to estimate hominid brain volume.)

It is not clear how many hominid species have existed throughout the course of the last 4.5 million years. In part, this is due to the incompleteness of the fossil record. However, it is also a function of the nature of the hominid fossil record as well. With a limited number of cranial and post cranial fossil fragments to work with it is not clear if observed differences in morphology are true indicators of a novel species or simply intraspecific variations within a population, across geography or through time. This problem and its implications are illustrated in a recent report describing a newly discovered partial cranium and partial jaw ascribed to Australopithecus boisei.29, 30

The ambiguity surrounding the definition of a species further complicates the process of determining the number of hominid species.31 There is no established relationship between morphological differences and speciation. A species can be defined as an interbreeding population (biological species concept) or as morphologically distinct populations (phylogenetic species concept). Based on which concept the researcher embraces he/she will either view novel anatomical features as indicative of a new species (splitters) or as an intraspecific variation (lumpers). That is, researcher opinion may have as much to do with determining hominid taxons as does objective scientific data.

Evolutionary phylogenies (relationships) are determined by comparing anatomical similarities in the fossil record and among extant species. Given the problems with the hominid fossil record it is questionable if evolutionary biologists can ever hope for more than crude working phylogenies.32 Examination of textbooks and treatises on human evolution point to the reality that paleoanthropologists are far from reaching a consensus on the pathway of hominid and human evolution. 33,34 The uncertainty of hominid phylogenetic relationships has recently been underscored.35, 36 Paleoanthropologists, Bernard Wood and Mark Collard have presented a convincing argument for the removal of the two closely related species Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis from the genus Homo and their placement among australopithecines. Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis are now recognized as having ape-like body mass, body proportions, teeth, and jaws closely related to australopithecines. The bipedalism possessed by these organisms is also distinct from the obligate bipedalism of Homo sapiens, and closely aligned to that of the australopithecines. A Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis and the other australopithecines displayed facultative bipedalism and the capability for tree climbing.37, 38 This new understanding now weakens the position of Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis as transitional species. These two species have long been regarded as transitional species between the australopithecines and Homo erectus. Placement of species Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis among australopithecines creates a discontinuity in hominid phylogenies. This recent work was not cited in the Time article. Could it be that the reason for this is because it does not help "fill in the story of how we evolved", but reveals how little insight paleoanthropologists have into human origins?

There are other problems that frustrate paleoanthropologists’ efforts to establish hominid evolutionary relationships.39 Convergent features are quite common among hominid fossils and suggest evolutionary connections among hominids that do not exist. It is troubling to discover that paleoanthropologists recognize this as a wide spread problem, but have no clear understanding as which traits are convergent. Additionally, small data sets that are focused on hominid crania also lead to artificial results, since other important anatomical features are disregarded.

Postcranial fossils are not as abundant as cranial remains in the hominid fossil record. Moreover, cranial traits are often treated as independent from one another. In actuality, many of these traits are more appropriately grouped as a trait complex. If trait complexes are not recognized, then artificially strong evolutionary relatedness is concluded when in fact it may not be the case at all.

It is clear that evolutionary relationships proposed by paleoanthropologists are highly speculative and developed from unreliable and poorly understood data sets of limited size. In light of this, it is scientifically untenable to assert that human evolution is a fact. What is a fact, is that evolutionary biologists have chosen to interpret their data within an evolutionary paradigm exclusively. From this framework, they then declare that their data supports human evolution. To demonstrate that humans evolved by natural processes, there must be rigorous evidence of clearly established evolutionary relationships with obvious transitions in the fossil record. The fact that there is no consensus among paleoanthropologists concerning the pathway of human evolution, nor can there ever be given the data available, means that human evolution has not been established as a fact. In addition to time-based verification, there also must be a well-defined mechanism that can produce the necessary evolutionary changes in the time available. Recent work on methodology to determine extinct hominid brain size indicates that this is also not the case for human evolution.

Brain Size Measurements:

One of the key anatomical characteristics that distinguishes humans from other primates (both extant and extinct) is brain size - both absolute brain size and the relative size of the brain with respect to overall body mass.40 This is particularly significant, since our large brain is responsible for our intelligence and the special ability to develop and use symbolic communication, speech, and tools that are foundational for establishing and maintaining human cultures and civilizations. More importantly, the human brain is responsible for our consciousness and self-awareness. It is not surprising that paleontologists have focused much attention on brain size in their human evolutionary models. Estimates made by paleontologists from fossil specimens seem to suggest that a continuous increase in hominid brain size has occurred with time across species that are regarded as being phylogenetically related.41,42 Furthermore, surveys of brain size ranges estimated by paleontologists for purported ancestor and descendent species appear to overlap supporting the evolutionary model for human origins.43

In light of this seemingly compelling evidence for human evolution, it is important to note that there are significant problems associated with making brain size measurements of hominid fossils. Many of the available fossil skulls are damaged and deformed and/or only partially complete making the measurement of endocranial volume possible only after researchers have corrected for the damage and reconstructed the skull to include the missing parts.44 Obviously, researcher error in making these reconstructions is a concern and will impact brain size determinations.

Further complicating reported surveys of hominid brain size is the presence of a stone matrix within other fossilized skulls preventing the preparation of an endocast.45 The mineralized matrix cannot be removed without damaging the internal features of these skull samples rendering the resultant endocast useless for brain size determination. For these specimens, brain size is calculated based on measurements of external skull features using modified equations developed for human endocranial size determinations. Again, error is introduced, since workers must make assumptions in order to modify the original equation without being able to validate these modifications. Error also results from attempting to make high precision measurements on external skull features that are deformed or damaged. Clearly, reported values of hominid brain size must be regarded as estimates.

Recently a team led by Glenn Conroy developed and validated methodology to accurately and precisely measure the cranial capacity of fossil skulls based on 3-D computed tomography imaging (CTI) technology and rapid-prototyping stereolithography techniques.46,47,48 The measurements made by this approach are objective and are highly reproducible and more accurate than the corresponding hand-made measurements which are subjective and prone to researcher error. A 2% error was found when CTI brain size results for 10 human skulls were compared with volumes determined directly by filling the skulls with mustard seed.

Conroy and co-workers applied their CTI methodology to determine the brain size of an Australopithecus africanus specimen, Stw 505, discovered in Sterkfontein, South Africa dated at 2.6 to 2.8 million years old.49 Earlier estimates of brain size for this specimen surpassed 600 ml, which would make it the largest A. africanus brain known exceeding that of many early Homo species. If this were indeed the case, then it would garner support for hominid evolution, in general, and more specifically, for models in which A. africanus evolved into Homo habilis. In contrast to both of these scenarios, Conroy and his colleagues measured the brain size of Stw 505 at ~515 ml - approximately 15% smaller than initial estimates. This result has not gone unchallenged. In separate responses, C. A. Lockwood and W. H. Kimball, and J. Hawks and M. H. Wolpoff have asserted that Conroy and his team failed to adequately take into account damage and deformation when making endocranial volume measurements resulting in a low biased measurement.50,51 However, in response to these protests, Conroy and his co-workers have clearly demonstrated that their result is sound and has been arrived at by carefully considering and correcting for any post mortem damage and deformation.52 There seems to be little doubt that the Stw 505 specimen is not an extraordinary fossil find, but rather represents a typical A. africanus skull.

The implications of these CTI measurements extend beyond the importance of the Stw 505 sample. Conroy and co-authors conclude the Science article describing this work by stating: "The recognition that no australopithecine has an endocranial capacity approaching, let alone exceeding, 600 ml, and that several key early hominid endocranial estimates may be inflated [my emphasis], suggests that current views of the tempo and mode of early hominid brain evolution may need re-evaluation."53 Commenting on this work, Dean Falk, of SUNY at Albany, echoed these concerns, noting that several endocasts in her collection appear to be considerably smaller than initially measured using calipers.54 Dean Falk has confidently held to this view even in the face of a direct protest from paleoanthropologist Tim White of UC Berkeley. 55, 56

The bias in brain size measurements will undoubtedly be extended to include other specimens as the CTI technique is more broadly applied. It is interesting to note that the study of Conroy and co-workers is not the first to suggest that hominid endocranial volumes reported in the paleoanthropological literature are biased high. Responding to Conroy's paper, Ralph Holloway of Columbia University has pointed out that as early as the 1970's he recognized that several reported endocranial volume measurements were over estimated.57 Holloway published endocranial volumes for the Sts 71 specimen of 428 ml and for the Taung Child of 404 ml compared to previously reported values at the time of 480 ml - 520 ml, and 525 ml - 562 ml, respectively. Holloway also reported an endocranial volume of 480 ml for the Sts 5 specimen which Conroy and his fellow researchers have recently confirmed using CTI.58 Most recently, Dean Falk reported at the 1999 annual meeting of the American Association for Physical Anthropology held in Columbus, Ohio that the cranial capacity of several A. africanus specimens were re-measured to be about 450 ml compared to the previously reported values near 500 ml.59

It appears as if the approaches used by paleontologists to measure brain size of extinct hominids has been yielding results that are about 15% to 20% higher than the actual value. This throws serious doubt on the reliability of brain size estimates that have appeared in the paleoanthropological literature. Caution should be used when considering any analysis or survey that uses heretofore reported brain size values to establish evolutionary scenarios. When this high bias is accounted for in hominid brain size surveys, any possibility of overlap between the brain size of extinct hominids and modern Homo sapiens is removed. A gap in brain size between H. erectus and modern H. sapiens is counter to what would be expected if a continuous descent with modification mechanism was responsible for human origins. Furthermore, the existence of a gap in brain size would demand an even more dramatic rate of evolutionary change than currently believed necessary to produce the pronounced changes needed to form the human brain by an evolutionary process. It would be premature at this point to conclude that a gap exists in the brain size between extinct Homo species and modern humans based on a single study. However, the results that are now being reported by Conroy and others represent a powerful challenge to the assertion that hominid evolution is a fact. Interestingly, Lemonick and Dorfman did not cite this significant work in the Time article.

Appearance of Modern Man:

The timing and the nature of the appearance of modern man in the fossil record are important to establishing the validity of the biblical scenario for the origin of man. The fossil evidence clearly shows that at about 40,000 years ago, there was an explosive appearance of Cro-Magnon man. Cro-Magnon man is indistinguishable from modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens).60 Prior to the sudden appearance of Cro-Magnon man, the fossil record is extremely sparse and unclear. There is the possibility that Homo sapiens may have appeared as far back as 100,000 to 130,000 years ago based on the Omo Kibish discovery and the discoveries at Qafzel and Skhul in Israel.61,62 These specimens show some anatomical similarity to Homo sapiens sapiens, but display clear behavioral differences. The behavior of these hominids is closely akin to that of Neandertals. It is important to note that the dating of these samples has been problematic. Specimens that fall between 30,000 years ago and 500,000 years ago are not covered by the well-established 14C and potassium-argon dating techniques.63 The dates estimated for have been estimated using the newly developed luminescence and electron spin resonance techniques. These dates must be regarded as estimates, at best.

Another interesting feature of the hominid fossil record is the apparent disappearance of Homo sapiens between 80,000 and 40,000 years ago. From an evolutionary perspective it has been proposed that Homo sapiens populations plummeted to near extinction and then for some unknown reason bounced back in full force about 40,000 years ago.64 This population bottleneck is viewed by evolutionary biologists as being responsible for the high degree of genetic uniformity among modern humans. (See below.)

The sudden appearance of modern humans in the fossil record at 40,000 years ago is in complete agreement with the biblical date for the appearance of mankind. Given that the fossil record is so sparse and the dating is problematic beyond 35,000 years ago, it is uncertain as to the true identity or true time of appearance of the Omo Kibbish and Qafzeh and Skhul finds. It is quite conceivable that these specimens may not even be Homo sapiens sapiens given their behavior. If these specimens are not true humans, then the absence of Homo sapiens in the fossil record between 40,000 and 80,000 years ago may actually represent the extinction of those particular species of bipedal primates, or reflect the fact that Homo sapiens sapiens did not appear on earth until about 40,000 years ago. If this is the case, then, the sudden appearance of modern man at 40,000 years ago can be attributed to the special creation of man by the Creator.

Archeological Evidence:

With the explosive emergence of Cro-Magnon Man in the fossil record around 40,000 years ago came rapid changes in the archeological record. There is a sudden increase in the complexity of the tool kit and sophistication of tool use observed around this time. The suddenness of this change in the archeological record is even more striking given that prior to the emergence of modern humans in the fossil record, the style and use of stone tools remained stagnant for hundreds of thousands of years.65 Showing up nearly concomitantly with the rapid shift in tool kit is the sudden appearance of sophisticated art and religious expression.

Sophisticated works of art first appear in the fossil record about 30,00-40,000 years ago and evidence of religious expression appears only about 30,000 years ago. 66, 67,68, 69 Prior to the appearance of sophisticated art around 30,00-40,000 years ago, very little, if any, evidence for art appears in the archeological record. Paleoanthropologists have referred to this as the "big bang" of artistic expression.70, 71 The quality of the artistic expression in these ancient works of art is spectacular. For example, in the recently discovered Grotte Chauvet caves, which contain the oldest advanced cave art yet discovered (dated at 32,000 years ago), the quality of the art work is so remarkable that it has demolished all previous chronologies for the development of artistic techniques such as shading and perspective.72 The paintings in these caves are actually more sophisticated than the work found in caves such as Lascaux and Altamira in which the cave art is dated at half the age of that found in Grotte Chauvet.

The rapid changes seen around 35, 000 to 45, 000 years ago include:73
• A shift in stone tool technology from predominantly "Rake" technologies to "blade" technologies, achieved by means of more economic techniques of core preparation.
• A simultaneous increase in the variety and complexity of stone tools involving more standardization of shape and a higher degree of "imposed form" in the various stages of production.
• The appearance of relatively complex and extensively shaped bone, antler, and ivory artifacts.
• An increase in the rate of technological change accompanied by increased regional diversification of tool forms.
• The appearance of beads, pendants, and other personal ornaments made from teeth, shell, bone, stone, and ivory blanks.
• The appearance of sophisticated and highly complex forms of representational or "naturalistic" art.
• Associated changes in the socioeconomic organization of human groups, marked by
i. a more specialized pattern of animal exploitation, based on systematic hunting
ii. a sharp increase in the overall density of human population
iii. an increase in the maximum size of local residential groups
iv. the appearance of more highly "structured" sites, including more evidence for hearths, pits, huts, tents, and other habitations
These results are contrary to what would be expected for the gradual evolutionary transformation of archaic Homo sapien species into modern humans. If an evolutionary mechanism was responsible for modern man’s appearance, then evidence of gradual transformations should be observed in the archeological record. We simply do not see this. In the words of paleoanthropologist Christopher Stringer, "It is an extraordinary catalogue of achievements that seem to have come from virtually nowhere". 74 The fossil and archeological records are both consistent with the biblical scenario and biblical date for man’s beginnings.

Genetic Evidence:

Up to this point, we have shown that the fossil and archeological evidence does not unequivocally establish human evolution as a fact. Moreover, there is nothing in the fossil and archeological record that precludes the biblical scenario for man’s origins as being true. In fact, 1) the discontinuity created in evolutionary scenarios by assigning Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis to australopithecines; 2) the problems with the overestimation of brain size in extinct hominids and the need it creates for identifying a mechanism to account for rapid the increase in brain size with the appearance of modern humans; and 3) the sudden appearance of Homo sapiens and complex behavior in the fossil and archeological record after a 40,000 year absence of any species closely resembling modern humans all provide support for the biblical creation model.

Additional support for the biblical scenario for man’s origin comes from the lack of genetic diversity of humans. As biologists studied humans and species of apes in the 1970's and 1980's, some rather surprising information was being discovered that distinguished modern man from apes and other primates. Surprisingly, scientists discovered that human genetic diversity is far less than what one would predict from Darwinian theory.75, 76, 77 The genetic variation among the different human races has been found to be much less than that for isolated populations of chimps, orangutans and other primate species. In addition, an analysis of the genetics of populations of apes reveals that different population groups possess fixed novel mutations that characterize each population.

In contrast, there are no novel mutations or genetic alleles that specifically characterize any one human race from another. Dr. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) has noted, "It's a mystery none of us can explain".78 Moreover, examination of the genetic sequences of diverse modern human populations reveals minor differences.79 All of this evidence suggested a recent origin for modern humans.
In the late 1980's and early 1990's a number of studies examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of women all over the world. These studies suggested that the last common ancestor of modern man (actually women) appeared within the last 200,000 years which is much more recent than previously thought.80, 81, 82, 83 Refinements in the measurements lowered the original estimates to 135,000 years and finally to 100,000 years (and as discussed below even possibly 50,000 years).84,85 Scientists chose to examine mtDNA because, being enclosed within the subcellular organelle called the mitochondrion, there is no genetic recombination (males make no contribution of mtDNA to the fetus). All mtDNA comes from our mothers and is passed down from mother to daughter, since only mitochondria from the egg are used to make up the fetus. By tracing the differences in mtDNA from peoples around the world, scientists have calculated the probable date of the last common ancestor of modern humans at 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Recent studies on the frequency of heteroplasmy (the possession of different mitochondrial biochemical types within a cell) indicates that mutations occur in mtDNA at a higher rate than initially thought. Re-calibration of the mtDNA molecular clock to take into account the higher mutation rate places the most likely date for man’s appearance near 50,000 years ago. 86, 87

In 1995, scientists examined human origins from the perspective of male genetics. 88, 89 Scientists have examined a gene (ZFY), which being on the Y chromosome, is passed down only from father to son. Thirty-eight men were chosen from all over the world (Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Northern, Central, and South America). Scientists determined the actual genetic sequence in each man for this gene, which is 729 base pairs long. To their surprise, all men had identical genetic sequences (over 27,000 base pairs analyzed). Scientists have calculated the most probable date for the last common ancestor of modern man, given the sequence diversity from modern apes. Using two different models this date is either 270,000 or 27,000 years ago. However, both these models assume that the male population during this entire period of time consisted of only 7,500 individuals. The date estimates from these models would be significantly reduced if the male population were higher than 7,500, which is very likely. Two separate studies using similar techniques looked at larger pieces of the Y chromosome, which would reduce the uncertainty in the calculation of dates. One study examined a gene which was 2,600 base pairs and determined a last common ancestor date of 188,000 years ago (minimum of 51,000 and maximum of 411,000 years ago). 90 The other study used a very large piece of the Y chromosome (18,300 base pairs) and calculated a last common ancestor date of modern man of 43,000 years ago (minimum of 37,000 and maximum of 49,000 years ago). 91 This latter study also examined mitochondrial DNA from women and determined an origination date of 90,000-120,000 years ago.

A study published in 1996 examined linkage disequilibrium at the human CD4 locus (a T-cell associated antigen) as a means to establish the date of modern human origins.92 This study determined a maximum origin date of 102,000 years ago based upon the assumption that the Alu (-) allele arose 5 million years ago, or almost immediately after mankind's split from other primates. As they stated, "It is likely that the Alu deletion event occurred more recently, in which case our estimates for the date of founding of the non-African populations would also be more recent."

Preliminary studies from chromosomes 19, 11 and 8 show similar results to that seen on chromosome 12 (the locus of the CD4 gene). 93
The mutation rate among humans also suggests a recent origin for man and creates problems for the evolutionary models for the origin of man. A just completed study examined the mutation rate for humans. Using "conservative assumptions" the authors found that the overall mutation rates was 4.2 mutations per person per generation, with a deleterious rate of 1.6.94When using more realistic assumptions the overall mutation rate for humans become 6.7 with a deleterious rate of 3.1. Such a high rate should have resulted in extinction of our species long ago. They stated in their conclusion:

"The deleterious mutation rate appears to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species, which have low reproductive rates, could survive if mutational effects on fitness were to combine in a multiplicative way."

The authors had to rely upon a rare association of mutations, termed synergistic epistasis to explain why the numerous hypothesized deleterious mutations have not overwhelmed our genome. Instead of postulating the obvious (that the human genome is not as old as evolution would teach), evolutionists must rely upon the improbable to retain the evolutionary paradigm.95

Neandertals:

The fossil and archeological records and the genetic evidence produced by three separate lines of investigation all point to a recent origin of Homo sapiens sapiens (around 40,000 – 50,000 years ago) in line with the Biblical scenario. The most likely ancestor for modern man, given man’s recent appearance on earth, is Homo neandertalensis. Neandertals lived from about 150,000 to about 40,000 years ago in Europe, parts of Asia and in the Middle East.96 (The dates for Neandertals are disputed in the literature.) This time frame immediately precedes the appearance of modern man. Neandertals evolutionary connection to modern man seems even more likely given the general anatomical similarities between Homo neandertalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. Unlike other hominids, there are an abundance of Neandertal fossils and artifacts available. Some 30 complete Neandertal skeletons have been recovered.97 This allows a rigorous assessment of the possibility that an evolutionary connection exists between modern man and Neandertals. Although anatomical similarities between Neandertals and modern humans exist, researchers have also recognized many differences as well. Compared to humans

Neandertals display:98
• a poorly developed chin
• a more elongated foramen magnum
• the presence of a medial pterygoid tubercle
• a highly developed twin brow ridge
• large round eye sockets
• a brain that is flatter and smaller in front and more bulged in the back and sides
• an extremely large nose
• "cavernous" sinuses
• larger front teeth
• a flatter skull base and higher larynx
• thicker bones
• more compact bodies, barrel chests and shorter limbs

These differences were not regarded as meaningful by many paleoanthropologists who viewed them as the result of environmental influences. That changed with the discovery of a Neandertal infant skeleton by Yoel Rak in 1992. This skeleton possessed many of the same anatomical distinctions leading Rak and other paleoanthropologists to conclude that Neandertals were inherently distinct from modern humans.99

More recent work on Neandertal morphology continues to support this conclusion and has cast serious doubt that humans and Neandertals shared a common evolutionary lineage. These studies have shown key differences in Neandertal's brain case and the presence of an internal nasal margin, a medial swelling of the lateral nasal wall, and a lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove.100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 None of these features are found in Homo Sapiens, and the last feature is not found in any other terrestrial mammal! Neandertals had a huge nasal cavity coupled with a brain size larger than our own. However, with their carnivorous lifestyle, it seems likely that much of their brain might have been devoted to the sense of smell, being the "dog" among the hominids.
One hotly disputed question among paleoanthropologists centers on Neandertal’s language capacity. While not completely conclusive, the evidence is ever increasingly pointing to the absence of speech capability and language among the Neandertals. For example, the structure of the Neandertals skull base is inconsistent with the capability for speech.106 A recent high profile study has suggested that Neandertals and modern humans had comparable vocal abilities based on the size of the Neandertal’s hypoglossal canal.107 The hypoglossal canal transmits the nerve that supplies the tongue muscles. The argument is the more richly the tongue muscle is supplied with nerves (requiring a larger canal) the better the motor control of the tongue. This is a key requirement for speech. However, this hypothesis has been demonstrated to be false. That is, there is no correlation between canal size and the ability to vocalize among both extinct and extant hominids.108, 109 Neandertal language ability is being promoted by some paleoanthropologists in an attempt to maintain the evolutionary link to modern humans. However, the scientific evidence is continuing to demonstrate that as with other morphological characteristics, Neandertals and modern humans are distinct.

The question of Neandertals being a part of the evolutionary lineage of modern humans has been recently laid to rest by a brilliantly designed and executed study. Scientists extracted mtDNA from a 50,000-100,000 year old Neanderthal skeleton.110, 111, 112 When the 397 base pair Neandertal mtDNA fragment was compared with a mtDNA sequence of 986 nucleotide pairs from living humans of diverse ethnic backgrounds, the difference was enormous — 26 nucleotide base pairs in the mtDNA differed completely (a 6.5% difference, which is almost as much as the average difference between human mtDNA and chimpanzee mtDNA, which is 8.9%).113 In this region of the mtDNA, modern humans differ from one another in an average of eight base pairs, and those differences were completely independent of the 26 observed for the Neandertal fossil. The researchers conclusion: "Neanderthals were not our ancestors" - a quote from the authors of the study. In fact, the differences compared to modern humans were so great that calculations indicated that the last common ancestor between modern man and Neandertal must have been at least 800,000 years ago, which was well before the first appearance of Neandertals in the fossil record.

To add even more weight to the finding, scientists have also analyzed mtDNA from an ancient modern human skeleton. A British team analyzed a portion of mtDNA in a 10,000 year old human skeleton found near Cheddar, England.114 The mtDNA from this skeleton differed from that of modern Europeans by only one nucleotide base pair — essentially identical to that of modern humans. The lack of "evolution" for humans over the last 10,000 years stands in sharp contrast to the differences seen between modern humans and Neandertals.

These amazing discoveries about Neandertals are being widely embraced by paleoanthropologists (although there are a few dissenters).115 It is clear that not only the best, but the only legitimate candidate for modern human’s ancestor has been displaced from the human evolutionary pathway. With no clear immediate ancestor to modern humans, it is scientifically unsound to maintain human evolution as a fact, let alone a reasonable scenario for the origin of man. The absence of an ancestral species to modern man is consistent with the biblical scenario.

Sadly, what has emerged as one of the most important revelations in paleoanthropology in recent years was down played in the Time article. The recognition that Neandertals are a separate lineage unrelated to man, as with other recent discoveries, highlights the weak evidential foundation of the human evolutionary paradigm counter to the desired theme of the Time article.

Recent High Profile Paleoanthropological Discoveries:

In the Time article, four recent discoveries are touted as revealing new secrets about man’s evolutionary past. The first discovery mentioned is that of the sister hominid species Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis dated at around 4.5 and 4.2 million years old, respectively. From an evolutionary standpoint, these are important species because they show up in the fossil record in the time frame that apes and hominids supposedly diverged (between 4 and 6 million years ago). 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122 To date no evidence has been presented to suggest that Ardipithecus ramidus possessed bipedal capabilities. However, the analysis of a nearly intact tibia, indicates that Australopithecus anamensis had bipedal capabilities. 123, 124 The bipedalism that the australopithecines possessed was not the same type of bipedalism we possess as modern humans, but rather a facultative bipedalism. Australopithecines also possessed the ability to climb trees as well. This means that at about the time that apes and hominids were diverging according to evolutionary ideas, bipedalism emerged. This creates a problem for the evolutionary paradigm since it does not give adequate time for the complex anatomical changes needed to support bipedalism to emerge. Moreover paleoecological studies suggest that the locale of the anamensis find at 4.2 million years ago was a mixture of savanna and woodlands.125 Given that fact, an animal with mixed bipedal and arboreal climbing abilities is well suited for its environment. It is no longer believed that the change from woodland to savannas drove the emergence of bipedalism.126, 127 This leaves paleoanthropologists with no driving force or selective pressure to explain the emergence of bipedalism.

Also discussed in the Time piece is the discovery of a novel Australopithecine (Australopithecus garhi) dated at about 2.5 million years ago in Ethiopia. Because of its date, and the location of the find, it has been described as the missing transitional species between Australopithecines and Homo. However, the evidence supporting this interpretation is not compelling nor is it as widely accepted among paleontologists, as we would be led to believe in the Time article. 128, 129, 130, 131 First, it should be pointed out that the evidence for this new species comes from a single partial fragmented skull and an upper leg and forearm bone discovered in the same general region, in the same stratographic layer, but one year apart. Under the best of circumstances, the data represents two individuals of the same species. The possibility is quite real that the fossil remains from the two finds are unrelated. Even, if the fossils come from the same species, they only represent two individuals. Because of this, there is no real understanding of the natural range of variation for the putative species traits or whether the fossil’s characteristics are the result of geological deformations or other anomalies. Moreover, the traits exhibited by the fossil skull, at best, only weakly link it to Homo. Most paleoanthropologists are not certain as to A. garhi’s relationship to other hominids. Given the recent re-assignment of the early Homo species Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis to the australopithecines, the putative similarity to early Homo becomes even less meaningful.132 Recently reported phylogenetic analysis employing cladistics concludes that the placement of Australopithecus garhi ancestral to Homo should be rejected.133 B. Asfaw et al. have challenged these results claiming misapplication of cladistics. Rather than using the data they reported for objective comparison, these workers prefer a subjective interpretation of their data.134 It should be noted that the conclusions reported from the cladistics analysis were based on the results of two independent analyses.135 Moreover, other paleoanthropologists have pointed out that it does not appear that there would be enough available time for evolution to transform A. garhi to Homo.136 The use of tools and meat eating behavior attributed to this animal are interesting, but have limited bearing on its human character, since this behavior is also observed for chimpanzees.

Also mentioned in the Time article is the discovery of Homo antecessor, dated at around 800,000 years ago. This hominid has been proposed as an ancestor species for both Neandertals and modern humans.137, 138 Homo antecessor has been designated as a new species and as a key transitional fossil based on very limited data, namely, the partial face of a juvenile, the likelihood of delayed dental maturation and the crudely estimated brain volume from a single cranial fragment.139, 140, 141, 142 This has led to concerns among paleoanthropologists. Not only because the designation as species is based on a single partial skull, but also because it is based on a juvenile specimen. With this being the case, there is not an understanding of the variation occurring across the species nor through the developmental process.143, 144 The possibility remains that this sample is a Homo erectus specimen. The importance to the human evolutionary scenario that paleoanthropologists ascribe of the Homo antecessor samples has yet to be established.145 If anything, the existence of Homo antecessor as a novel species has the potential to throw the field of human evolutionary biology into a state of chaos, not yield new insight. For example, J. M. Bermudez de Castro et al., are suggesting that Homo erectus is no longer part of the evolutionary pathway leading to modern man and Neandertals, but rather is a side lineage without descendents.146, 147

The final discovery cited in the Time article is the uncovering of a child burial in the Lapedo Valley, just north of Lisbon, Portugal. The workers who discovered and studied the 24,500 year old skeleton concluded that it is possesses a mix of Neandertal and modern human anatomical characteristics.148, 149 This interpretation supports the notion that Neandertals and Homo sapiens interbred resulting in the disappearance of Neandertals and the emergence of modern humans. Because the date of this find is after the disappearance of Neandertals, it has been concluded that there was significant interbreeding between the two populations, not just isolated interactions. This claim serves to keep the evolutionary connection between Neandertals and modern humans alive and challenges the accumulating morphological and biochemical evidence that Neandertals have no phylogenetic relationship to modern man, but rather disappeared without descent. (See above.) This interpretation has not been met with much enthusiastic support by paleoanthropologists. Commenting on this discovery, Ian Tattersal and Jeffery Schwartz state, "the analysis by Duarte et al of the Lager Velho child’s skeleton is a brave and imaginative interpretation, of which it is unlikely that a majority of paleoanthropologists will consider proven."150 The reasons for the lukewarm response of the anthropological community are many. First, as Tattersal and Schwartz point out, nobody knows what a Neandertal-human hybrid would look like.151 Secondly, this is a single find, if interbreeding was really so wide spread, then, as Christopher Stringer points out, we would expect to find these features in the numerous fossils of modern humans.152 More specific arguments against the interbreeding hypothesis include the fact that the grave containing the specimen was a typical human grave and the skeleton not only possesses no derived Neandertal features, but also has no hint of any Neandertal morphology.153 It seems as if the fossil simply represents a stocky human child or human child with a growth abnormality. 154
These recent discoveries have no doubt elicited interest among paleoanthropologists. However, the importance attributed to most of these discoveries by paleoanthropologists as reported in the Time article is over blown. Moreover, it is not clear what insight these discoveries offer to those embracing an evolutionary scenario for man’s origins. In fact, if anything, they point out speculative nature of human evolutionary models and the lack of insight into the emergence of man that exists among paleoanthropologists. Finally, the early and sudden appearance of australopithecines with bipedal capability in a wood land/forest ecology creates a serious problem for the evolutionary paradigm.

Conclusion:

We have presented comprehensive scientific evidence that, contrary to the commonly held view that humans have evolved from an ape-like ancestor, supports the biblical scenario for man’s origin as described in Genesis 1. It is clear from our analysis, that human evolution has not been established as a scientific fact. To declare evolution as a fact, and to only examine data in light of evolutionary theory, is counter to the way that the scientific enterprise is conducted and reflects a philosophical position. Modern cosmology and physics have allowed for the introduction of possible supernatural explanations for the material universe and phenomena occurring within the universe - particularly for scientific research into origins.

We have evaluated the scientific evidence in light of two scenarios: the evolutionary scenario and the biblical scenario. When taken as a whole, the scientific evidence more closely agrees with the biblical scenario. In fact, the paleontological evidence fails to establish a clearly defined evolutionary pathway with readily recognized transitions. Moreover, the evolutionary paradigm cannot explain the sudden, recent appearance of modern man on earth with no evidence for an evolutionary ancestor.
Our analysis demonstrates that the creationist view deserves consideration in the science classroom along with the evolutionary paradigm. The words of the Bible and the facts and record of nature are not at odds, but are in full agreement.
________________________________________
References
1. Pam Belluck, "Kansas Board Votes to Delete Evolution from Its Science Curriculum," Daily Bulletin (Upland, CA), Thursday, August 12, 1999.
2. Rex Dalton, "Kansas Kicks Evolution Out The Classroom," Nature, 400 (1999), p. 701.
3. S. Carpenter, "Kansas Cuts Evolution From Curriculum," Science News, 156 (1999), p. 117.
4. Constance Holden, "Kansas Dumps Darwin, Raises Alarm Across the United States," Science, 285 (1999), pp. 1186-1187.
5. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human," Time, August 23, (1999), pp.50-58.
6. Stephen Jay Gould, "Dorothy, It’s Really Oz," Time, August 23, (1999), p. 59.
7. Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:20.
8. 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:10-12.
9. "The Difference Between Science and Dogma," Nature, 400 (1999), p. 697.
10. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1998).
11. Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, 2nd Edition (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing Co., 1991).
12. Hugh Ross, "Big Bang Model Refined by Fire" in Mere Creation. Science, Faith & Intelligent Design, William A. Dembski, Editor (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), pp. 363-384.
13. Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, 2nd Edition (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing Co., 1991), pp.61-105.
14. Kenneth R. Samples, "The Historic Alliance of Christianity and Science," Facts & Faith, v. 12, n. 5, (1998), pp. 8-9.
15. Nancy R. Pearcey and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science. Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994).
16. Roger Lewin, Principles of Human Evolution (Malden, MS: Blackwell Science, Inc., 1998).
17. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman, "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human," Time, August 23, (1999), pp.50-58.
18. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998), pp. 53-54; 107-110.
19. Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible (New International Version) (Chattanooga, TH: AMG Publishers, 1996).
20. Mary-Claire King and A. C. Wilson, "Evolution at Two Levels in Human and Chimpanzees," Science, 188 (1975), pp. 107-116.
21. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question, (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998), pp. 54-55; 110.
22. Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie, African Exodus. The Origins of Modern Humanity (New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, 1996), pp. 85-114.
23. Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible (New International Version) (Chattanooga, TH: AMG Publishers, 1996).
24. H

Post Reply

Return to “Religious Thought”