The American Museum of Natural History, New York opened a new, multi-million dollar exibit simply entitled “Darwin”. Michael Novacek, the senior vice president at the museum, says this exhibit is not an attempt “to try to convert or violate the beliefs of different people’s position” but to provide “information and insight about a fascinating person and his great discovery.” Yet the web page on the exhibit shows a different story with 24 articles directly on the creation vs. evolution debate.
In these articles that are supposedly trying to inform us about Darwin and not attack the beliefs of different people, many statements are found that do just that. Further, many statements are solely faith-based, misleading, false or outright lies. The following are direct quotes from their web pages. These are quite extensively attacking Creation and defending evolution as opposed to celebrating Charles Darwin the man.
“Before Darwin's time, humans were not considered part of the natural world… few questioned the Biblical story of creation.”
True, but irrelevant if this was to be a celebration of Darwin and not an attack on Scripture and Creation.
“Relying on interpretations of the Bible, most people in England believed that Earth was only about 6,000 years old—not nearly old enough for countless species to have evolved. Today, we know from radiometric dating that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.”
The first sentence is true, but that does not make the second any less false. We by no means ‘know’ the age of the earth. Even the touted radiometric dating methods range between 4 billion and 10 billion years old. A margin far greater than to allow any claim of knowing the Earth’s age even if radiometric dating methods were reliable.
“The result is a population that is better suited—better adapted-to some aspect of the environment than it was before. Legs once used for walking are modified for use as wings or flippers.”
First, adaptation is not evolution. It is adaptation and does not create anything new. Apes are still apes, birds are still birds and whales are still whales. Further, the only similarity between legs, wings and flippers are the names man has given to each bone. Naming two dissimilar things with the same name does not make them the same. There are many cities around the world named “Paris” but it does not make any of them Paris, France.
“Overwhelming evidence shows us that all species are related—that is, that they are all descended from a common ancestor.”
False – the evidence shows that DNA between different kinds of animals have varrying degrees of similarities. That is ALL it shows, nothing more. Now, if you view this evidence through your predetirmined bias and apply them together, you can come up with an UNSCIENTIFIC possible explanation.
If your preferred bias is naturalism, they are correct that it could point to a common ancestor. If your bias is God, the exact same evidence points just as strongly to a common creator. If you have yet a different bias and apply the same evidence, it would support that one as well. The EVIDENCE is fact. The conclusion is faith.
“Natural selection is a simple mechanism that causes populations of living things to change over time. In fact, it is so simple that it can be broken down into five basic steps, abbreviated here as V.I.S.T.A.: Variation, Inheritance, Selection, Time and Adaptation.”
All correct. However, as stated, this allows for variation and adaptation which are neither one ‘evolution’. A dog kind who migrates to the North Pole and develops a thicker coat is still a dog. A Lizard kind who gradually changes color to better fit its environment is still a lizard. Never has it been observed that one kind changes into another kind of animal.
Vestigial legs are a clue that snakes descended from lizards.
Snakes do not have legs, vestigal or not. Thes apendages that are refferred to have nothing at all to do with legs or walking. They are critical apendages used by the snake to properly connect it to another snake during mating in order to reproduce. Without these, the snakes would have an incredibly difficult time keeping the reproductive organs together long enough for fertilization to have a chance.
Over 100 million years ago, some lizards happened to be born with smaller legs, which, in certain environments, helped them move about unencumbered. As generation after generation survived and reproduced, this new form flourished. Over time, all members of the group were born with shorter legs, and eventually with no legs at all.
This makes for a good story, but when applied to real life, this becomes impossible. The problem is with naural selection itself. The above lizard born with the shorter legs would now be slower. When chased by a predator, the faster, longer legged lizard would survive and the shorter legged one would die, Not survive and flourish.
As the legs continued to shrink, this problem would only multiply. Eventually the legs would be so small as to still be there, but be useless. Here the naturalist will say is when they began to slither like snakes do. Again there is an overwhelming problem. This slithering snake now has four apendages dragging along the ground, catching in brush, slowing it down and making it a easy target for predators.
These intermediate steps are crucial to evolution, but all of them would result in a reptile unable to survive. Evolutionists overcome this problem by doing as we just saw. They generalize the process so much that people don’t think about the impossible steps between their start and finish.
Humans also have vestigial features, evidence of our own evolutionary history. The appendix, for instance, is believed to be a remnant of a larger, plant-digesting structure found in our ancestors.
Blatantly false. Our appendix is by no means vestigal but plays an extremely important role in the prevention of a number offatal diseases. Yes, we CAN live without it just like we can live without al our arms, legs, eyes, tongue, etc. But just because we can live without it, does not make it vestigal.
Human Vestiges - erector pili (muscles that cause goose bumps), body hair, coccyx (tail bone), wisdom teeth, appendix
Another falsehood. Goose bumps are a way for our body to indicate it is cold. Body hair provides warmth to the body. The tail bone has 7 muscles that are very important to our ability to urinate or have bowl movement. Wisdom teeth are teeth! Granted, if allowed to come in, some people’s smile will be crooked, but they are still fully functional teeth. Usually the evolutionists would also include tonsils which help prevent throat disease and only a few decades ago, their list went as far as to include the colon!
Humans, whales, bats, eagles, lizards, frogs and chimpanzees are very different types of animals that use their forelimbs in very different ways. But beneath the skin, the forelimb bones of these animals are startlingly similar. These likenesses in structure, called homologies, are the result of descent from a common ancestor.
Besides the fact that the closest similarity is only the names man has given each part, once again the only fact is that some animals have some similarities. Assigning “common ancestor” verses “common creator” is stepping outside of science and into faith. Both explain the evidence equally well and neither can be scientifically substantiated.
Embryology - A Common Beginning - As adults, pigs, chickens and zebrafish are very different animals. But surprisingly, all three look very similar in their early stages of development, and chickens and pigs retain many similarities nearly until they are born.
Another bold lie. This is a hoax started well over a hundred years ago by a man named Ernst Haeckel. In the mid-late 1800’s Haeckel made up a concept of embryonic recapitulation’ or ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’ In his own lifetime, this fraud was discovered; Haeckel was tried by his own university and found guilty. Afterwards he admitted his fraud and stated that he should feel condemned by the outcome, but as other scientists do the same thing, he did not feel guilty for it.
Sometimes, new species or varieties arise in a matter of years or even days. Other times, species remain stable for long periods, showing little or no evolutionary change. However, the characteristics of organisms that reproduce every few hours, such as bacteria, can potentially evolve much faster than in organisms with generations that are measured in months or years, such as horses.
Completely correct. Flies give new species of flies. Dogs give new species of dogs. Bacteria give new species of bacteria. However, none of these ever give a non-fly, a non-dog or a non-bacteria. Nothing evolves.
The evolution of the horse is well documented by a lengthy fossil record extending over 55 million years. During this time, episodes of relatively rapid modification were interspersed with long periods of little change. And it is clear that horses adapted to many different environments and pressures. Careful dating and analysis of fossils shows a clear succession of forms, from the dog-sized Hyracotherium to Equus, the modern horse. Hyracotherium, Merychippus and Equus represent stages in the evolutionary path to living horses, a sequence that shows species becoming larger through time.
Another lie that has been discredited for many decades. Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 came up with this concept. First, he did not find these horses in one place but all over. They were not found in the order they are displayed in textbooks. Modern horses are found in the same strata as so-called ancient horses. One of the oldest “horses” in the chain is not a horse at all but an animal called a hyrax and is still alive today. Plus, the order they have them in doesn’t work.
Yes they go from smallest to largest. They also go from Eohippus, the ancient horse, with 8 pairs of ribs, the next one had 15 pairs of ribs, the next one after that had 19 pairs, the next one after that had 18 pairs. If this was really evolution, it would progress as the new animal evolved, not jump back and forth!
Sometimes evolution happens overnight. Unlike most larger organisms, viruses and bacteria reproduce very rapidly—they simply split in two every few minutes or hours, with both offspring continuing to divide and multiply. Such short spacing between generations can help speed up the evolutionary process.
No, such short time frames can speed up a change within a species. But nothing new has ever been seen to have evolved. Viruses are still viruses, bacteria is still bacteria.
Punctuated Equilibria - Evolution is an ongoing process. But fossil records show that species often remain unchanged for millions of years. Evolutionary change then comes in brief bursts of activity.
This inclusion is actually humorous! Punctuated Equilibria is simply evolutionists way of getting around the lack of a single intermediate fossil. They find only fully formed types of animals, no inbetween steps. So they say a fish gave birth to a frog. Wallah! Punctuated Equilibria! The FAR more believable option is that the reason there are zero intermediate fossils is that there are no intermedate fossils because everything was created in fuly formed kinds.
Like all other living things, humans have evolved, a process well documented by the fossil record.
Well documented???? You’re kidding, right? The fossil record shows fully formed primates and fully formed man. All but one of the so-called missing links (Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, etc) have been shown to be frauds. That one remaining one (neandertal), has been shown to be a fully formed human with advanced cases of arthritus / rickets. The only thing that ‘well documented’ are fully formed primates, fully formed humans and fuly formed frauds!
Analyses of human DNA suggest that all modern humans are descendants of people who lived in Africa between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago.
Hmmm… a blanket, believe-me-because-I-say-so statement. This one is hard to refute in any concrete way because no concrete information is given. HOW does DNA suggest anything at all about ages? DNA shows DNA, not ages. Decay rates, fossils in strata and strata with fossils are dating methods. Not DNA.
The giraffe's long neck, for instance, was perfect for feeding on high leaves. But how did the giraffe get its neck? Lamarck thought it resulted from the constant effort of reaching for food. Constant use of a body part, he argued, made it larger and stronger.
Another leap of faith. First, changing a physical trait is not changing a genetic trait. In some African tribes women use rings to stretch their necks during their life time. However their offspring do not carry this trait because it is not in the DNA coding.
However, changing this concept to say that the naturally occuring offspring with longer necks thrived and increased for millions of years doesn’t work either. Why? At some point, the amount of blood loss when standing up would knock the pre-giraffe out until it equalized. In reverse, the amount of blood quickly flowing to the brain when it lowered its neck would cause a hemridge and kill the animal. However, the fully formed giraffe (which is the only giraffe found in fossils) has a very highly adapted mechanism to equalize the blood to prevent this.
This adaptation is found nowhere else in the animal kingdom. This means either the giraffe evolved this specialty when it had a short neck then grew a longer neck. However, forming this specialty with no neck would not benefit the pre-giraffe but be a unmeaningful trate. Natural selection would not favor it and therefore it would breed back into the population and be lost.
The other possibility is in a nearly infinately improbable coincidence, both of these would have to evolve at precisely the same time. Bear in mind that evolution is by random chance and not controlled. These two specializaions would be evolving independent of each other. One feature does not direct another. The longer neck requires the stabalizing mechanism but cannot make it happen. It would have to happen, at the same time, by independent, random chance. You can place your faith in that incredible miracle or we can believe the giraffe was just made as-is. Personally, I don’t have enough faith to believe the evolutionary model.
And here is where it gets even better:
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.
Actually, a theory is derived by following the Scientific Method. Part of which is, as mentioned, observing an aspect of the natural world, creating a hypothesis, making a test, testing it then retesting it until the outcome is certain. Unfortunately, evolution has never, ever been observed therefore cannot be a theory. As it cannot even be initially observed, calling it a hypothesis is even a stretch.
The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space.
Agreed, these are fine examples of how gravity can be observed in the natural world.
Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.
So where’s the initial observation? This is the conclusion, not the initial observation. Plants and animals are here. Seeing them here doesn’t say anything about how they got here. Fossils don’t say anything about how the fossils got here. Apples fall = observation. Astronaughts float = observation. Animals evolve = faith.
Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected.
True. So lets test evolution. Breed any two (insert life form here). Keep breeding. Breed them over and over and over again. Do we ever, even once see the (insert life form here) offspring evolve into anything other than the (insert life form here)? No. Flies are still flies, Monkeys are still monkeys, bacteria are stil bacteria and man is still man.
Darwin passionately opposed social injustice and oppression. He would have been dismayed to see the events of generations to come: his name attached to opposing ideologies from Marxism to unbridled capitalism, and to policies from ethnic cleansing to forced sterilization.
Quotes from Darwin’s 'Descent of Man,' 1871
“The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the Gorilla.”
"It is generally admitted that with women the powers of
intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly
marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are
characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state
of civilization. The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the
two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he
takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason,
or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands."
You decide…
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the only scientific explanation for the spectacular diversity of life on Earth.
Propoganda. It is neither the only explanation nor is it scientific.
Creationism, including Intelligent Design, does not offer a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. By invoking the act of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer as the explanation for life's diversity, Creationism invokes a cause that lies outside our powers of observation and thus outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Agreed. Creationism is not testable in full. However hypothesis’ can be derived at that can be scientifically tested and seen to support Creationism. This makes the evidence FOR Creation scientific, but Creation itself remains faith. The catch is, the EXACT SAME thing goes for evolution. Creation is no more and no less scientific as is evolution. If one faith is taught so should the other.
My personal prefrence, however, would be to have only the facts taught as facts and students taught that by looking at the facts through different presuppositions, different possibilities arrise. To find the actual truth, ALL of these possibilities should be persued for the greatest understanding of the world around us. Not just one, dogmaticly held possibility.
For 150 years since the publication of Darwin's "Origins of Species", the theory of evolution by natural selection has not been seriously challenged by any other scientific explanation. Evolution serves as the foundation for all of modern biology, including research critical to human welfare, medicine and the fight against disease.
False and false. First, It very much has been challenged by an an equally scientific explanation as evolution. The problem arrises in that creationists admit that the facts are facts and that the conclusion they arrive at is based on (not blind) faith. However, evolutionists refuse to admit that the same, insist their conclusion is based on their faith in naturalisn, humanism and universitarinism.
This defines the creation verses evolution debate and why it is so heated. Evolutionists refuse to admit the truth and insist their conclusions are not arrived at on faith in these aspects but are indeed fact themselves. This leaves the creationist with one of two options:
1) Take the truthful approach, admit what is fact and what is a conclusion arrived at by viewing the facts through a preconcieved belife, and have the evolutionists then claim it is science verses religion.
2) Take the equally innaccurate approach of claiming that since the evolutionist insists that his view is both factual and scientific, that since evolution and creation are equally based on fact vs. faith, therefore Creation is also just as factual and scientific.
The first option sets up an inpenetrable obstacle that sets creation up as the loser by default. The second option is also hard to argue because both sides argue in favor of something that is not true. It’s an option neither can win since both start with a false basis. The only option where truth and progress can be arrived at is that both sides state only facts as facts and admit that their conclusion comes through their faithfully accepted starting point. Unfortunately, one side refuses this approach because it opens the door that the otherside may be right. This results in children walking through museums being indoctrinated into the faith of the one with the most money who appeals most to the dogma of committee running that particular museum.
Arthur Smith
11/21/05
The American Museum of Natural History, New York opened a new, multi-million dollar exibit simply entitled “Darwin”. Michael Novacek, the senior vice president at the museum, says this exhibit is not an attempt “to try to convert or violate the beliefs of different people’s position” but to provide “information and insight about a fascinating person and his great discovery.” Yet the web page on the exhibit shows a different story with 24 articles directly on the creation vs. evolution debate.
In these articles that are supposedly trying to inform us about Darwin and not attack the beliefs of different people, many statements are found that do just that. Further, many statements are solely faith-based, misleading, false or outright lies. The following are direct quotes from their web pages. These are quite extensively attacking Creation and defending evolution as opposed to celebrating Charles Darwin the man.
“Before Darwin's time, humans were not considered part of the natural world… few questioned the Biblical story of creation.”
True, but irrelevant if this was to be a celebration of Darwin and not an attack on Scripture and Creation.
“Relying on interpretations of the Bible, most people in England believed that Earth was only about 6,000 years old—not nearly old enough for countless species to have evolved. Today, we know from radiometric dating that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.”
The first sentence is true, but that does not make the second any less false. We by no means ‘know’ the age of the earth. Even the touted radiometric dating methods range between 4 billion and 10 billion years old. A margin far greater than to allow any claim of knowing the Earth’s age even if radiometric dating methods were reliable.
“The result is a population that is better suited—better adapted-to some aspect of the environment than it was before. Legs once used for walking are modified for use as wings or flippers.”
First, adaptation is not evolution. It is adaptation and does not create anything new. Apes are still apes, birds are still birds and whales are still whales. Further, the only similarity between legs, wings and flippers are the names man has given to each bone. Naming two dissimilar things with the same name does not make them the same. There are many cities around the world named “Paris” but it does not make any of them Paris, France.
“Overwhelming evidence shows us that all species are related—that is, that they are all descended from a common ancestor.”
False – the evidence shows that DNA between different kinds of animals have varrying degrees of similarities. That is ALL it shows, nothing more. Now, if you view this evidence through your predetirmined bias and apply them together, you can come up with an UNSCIENTIFIC possible explanation.
If your preferred bias is naturalism, they are correct that it could point to a common ancestor. If your bias is God, the exact same evidence points just as strongly to a common creator. If you have yet a different bias and apply the same evidence, it would support that one as well. The EVIDENCE is fact. The conclusion is faith.
“Natural selection is a simple mechanism that causes populations of living things to change over time. In fact, it is so simple that it can be broken down into five basic steps, abbreviated here as V.I.S.T.A.: Variation, Inheritance, Selection, Time and Adaptation.”
All correct. However, as stated, this allows for variation and adaptation which are neither one ‘evolution’. A dog kind who migrates to the North Pole and develops a thicker coat is still a dog. A Lizard kind who gradually changes color to better fit its environment is still a lizard. Never has it been observed that one kind changes into another kind of animal.
Vestigial legs are a clue that snakes descended from lizards.
Snakes do not have legs, vestigal or not. Thes apendages that are refferred to have nothing at all to do with legs or walking. They are critical apendages used by the snake to properly connect it to another snake during mating in order to reproduce. Without these, the snakes would have an incredibly difficult time keeping the reproductive organs together long enough for fertilization to have a chance.
Over 100 million years ago, some lizards happened to be born with smaller legs, which, in certain environments, helped them move about unencumbered. As generation after generation survived and reproduced, this new form flourished. Over time, all members of the group were born with shorter legs, and eventually with no legs at all.
This makes for a good story, but when applied to real life, this becomes impossible. The problem is with naural selection itself. The above lizard born with the shorter legs would now be slower. When chased by a predator, the faster, longer legged lizard would survive and the shorter legged one would die, Not survive and flourish.
As the legs continued to shrink, this problem would only multiply. Eventually the legs would be so small as to still be there, but be useless. Here the naturalist will say is when they began to slither like snakes do. Again there is an overwhelming problem. This slithering snake now has four apendages dragging along the ground, catching in brush, slowing it down and making it a easy target for predators.
These intermediate steps are crucial to evolution, but all of them would result in a reptile unable to survive. Evolutionists overcome this problem by doing as we just saw. They generalize the process so much that people don’t think about the impossible steps between their start and finish.
Humans also have vestigial features, evidence of our own evolutionary history. The appendix, for instance, is believed to be a remnant of a larger, plant-digesting structure found in our ancestors.
Blatantly false. Our appendix is by no means vestigal but plays an extremely important role in the prevention of a number offatal diseases. Yes, we CAN live without it just like we can live without al our arms, legs, eyes, tongue, etc. But just because we can live without it, does not make it vestigal.
Human Vestiges - erector pili (muscles that cause goose bumps), body hair, coccyx (tail bone), wisdom teeth, appendix
Another falsehood. Goose bumps are a way for our body to indicate it is cold. Body hair provides warmth to the body. The tail bone has 7 muscles that are very important to our ability to urinate or have bowl movement. Wisdom teeth are teeth! Granted, if allowed to come in, some people’s smile will be crooked, but they are still fully functional teeth. Usually the evolutionists would also include tonsils which help prevent throat disease and only a few decades ago, their list went as far as to include the colon!
Humans, whales, bats, eagles, lizards, frogs and chimpanzees are very different types of animals that use their forelimbs in very different ways. But beneath the skin, the forelimb bones of these animals are startlingly similar. These likenesses in structure, called homologies, are the result of descent from a common ancestor.
Besides the fact that the closest similarity is only the names man has given each part, once again the only fact is that some animals have some similarities. Assigning “common ancestor” verses “common creator” is stepping outside of science and into faith. Both explain the evidence equally well and neither can be scientifically substantiated.
Embryology - A Common Beginning - As adults, pigs, chickens and zebrafish are very different animals. But surprisingly, all three look very similar in their early stages of development, and chickens and pigs retain many similarities nearly until they are born.
Another bold lie. This is a hoax started well over a hundred years ago by a man named Ernst Haeckel. In the mid-late 1800’s Haeckel made up a concept of embryonic recapitulation’ or ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.’ In his own lifetime, this fraud was discovered; Haeckel was tried by his own university and found guilty. Afterwards he admitted his fraud and stated that he should feel condemned by the outcome, but as other scientists do the same thing, he did not feel guilty for it.
Sometimes, new species or varieties arise in a matter of years or even days. Other times, species remain stable for long periods, showing little or no evolutionary change. However, the characteristics of organisms that reproduce every few hours, such as bacteria, can potentially evolve much faster than in organisms with generations that are measured in months or years, such as horses.
Completely correct. Flies give new species of flies. Dogs give new species of dogs. Bacteria give new species of bacteria. However, none of these ever give a non-fly, a non-dog or a non-bacteria. Nothing evolves.
The evolution of the horse is well documented by a lengthy fossil record extending over 55 million years. During this time, episodes of relatively rapid modification were interspersed with long periods of little change. And it is clear that horses adapted to many different environments and pressures. Careful dating and analysis of fossils shows a clear succession of forms, from the dog-sized Hyracotherium to Equus, the modern horse. Hyracotherium, Merychippus and Equus represent stages in the evolutionary path to living horses, a sequence that shows species becoming larger through time.
Another lie that has been discredited for many decades. Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 came up with this concept. First, he did not find these horses in one place but all over. They were not found in the order they are displayed in textbooks. Modern horses are found in the same strata as so-called ancient horses. One of the oldest “horses” in the chain is not a horse at all but an animal called a hyrax and is still alive today. Plus, the order they have them in doesn’t work.
Yes they go from smallest to largest. They also go from Eohippus, the ancient horse, with 8 pairs of ribs, the next one had 15 pairs of ribs, the next one after that had 19 pairs, the next one after that had 18 pairs. If this was really evolution, it would progress as the new animal evolved, not jump back and forth!
Sometimes evolution happens overnight. Unlike most larger organisms, viruses and bacteria reproduce very rapidly—they simply split in two every few minutes or hours, with both offspring continuing to divide and multiply. Such short spacing between generations can help speed up the evolutionary process.
No, such short time frames can speed up a change within a species. But nothing new has ever been seen to have evolved. Viruses are still viruses, bacteria is still bacteria.
Punctuated Equilibria - Evolution is an ongoing process. But fossil records show that species often remain unchanged for millions of years. Evolutionary change then comes in brief bursts of activity.
This inclusion is actually humorous! Punctuated Equilibria is simply evolutionists way of getting around the lack of a single intermediate fossil. They find only fully formed types of animals, no inbetween steps. So they say a fish gave birth to a frog. Wallah! Punctuated Equilibria! The FAR more believable option is that the reason there are zero intermediate fossils is that there are no intermedate fossils because everything was created in fuly formed kinds.
Like all other living things, humans have evolved, a process well documented by the fossil record.
Well documented???? You’re kidding, right? The fossil record shows fully formed primates and fully formed man. All but one of the so-called missing links (Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, etc) have been shown to be frauds. That one remaining one (neandertal), has been shown to be a fully formed human with advanced cases of arthritus / rickets. The only thing that ‘well documented’ are fully formed primates, fully formed humans and fuly formed frauds!
Analyses of human DNA suggest that all modern humans are descendants of people who lived in Africa between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago.
Hmmm… a blanket, believe-me-because-I-say-so statement. This one is hard to refute in any concrete way because no concrete information is given. HOW does DNA suggest anything at all about ages? DNA shows DNA, not ages. Decay rates, fossils in strata and strata with fossils are dating methods. Not DNA.
The giraffe's long neck, for instance, was perfect for feeding on high leaves. But how did the giraffe get its neck? Lamarck thought it resulted from the constant effort of reaching for food. Constant use of a body part, he argued, made it larger and stronger.
Another leap of faith. First, changing a physical trait is not changing a genetic trait. In some African tribes women use rings to stretch their necks during their life time. However their offspring do not carry this trait because it is not in the DNA coding.
However, changing this concept to say that the naturally occuring offspring with longer necks thrived and increased for millions of years doesn’t work either. Why? At some point, the amount of blood loss when standing up would knock the pre-giraffe out until it equalized. In reverse, the amount of blood quickly flowing to the brain when it lowered its neck would cause a hemridge and kill the animal. However, the fully formed giraffe (which is the only giraffe found in fossils) has a very highly adapted mechanism to equalize the blood to prevent this.
This adaptation is found nowhere else in the animal kingdom. This means either the giraffe evolved this specialty when it had a short neck then grew a longer neck. However, forming this specialty with no neck would not benefit the pre-giraffe but be a unmeaningful trate. Natural selection would not favor it and therefore it would breed back into the population and be lost.
The other possibility is in a nearly infinately improbable coincidence, both of these would have to evolve at precisely the same time. Bear in mind that evolution is by random chance and not controlled. These two specializaions would be evolving independent of each other. One feature does not direct another. The longer neck requires the stabalizing mechanism but cannot make it happen. It would have to happen, at the same time, by independent, random chance. You can place your faith in that incredible miracle or we can believe the giraffe was just made as-is. Personally, I don’t have enough faith to believe the evolutionary model.
And here is where it gets even better:
In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.
Actually, a theory is derived by following the Scientific Method. Part of which is, as mentioned, observing an aspect of the natural world, creating a hypothesis, making a test, testing it then retesting it until the outcome is certain. Unfortunately, evolution has never, ever been observed therefore cannot be a theory. As it cannot even be initially observed, calling it a hypothesis is even a stretch.
The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space.
Agreed, these are fine examples of how gravity can be observed in the natural world.
Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.
So where’s the initial observation? This is the conclusion, not the initial observation. Plants and animals are here. Seeing them here doesn’t say anything about how they got here. Fossils don’t say anything about how the fossils got here. Apples fall = observation. Astronaughts float = observation. Animals evolve = faith.
Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected.
True. So lets test evolution. Breed any two (insert life form here). Keep breeding. Breed them over and over and over again. Do we ever, even once see the (insert life form here) offspring evolve into anything other than the (insert life form here)? No. Flies are still flies, Monkeys are still monkeys, bacteria are stil bacteria and man is still man.
Darwin passionately opposed social injustice and oppression. He would have been dismayed to see the events of generations to come: his name attached to opposing ideologies from Marxism to unbridled capitalism, and to policies from ethnic cleansing to forced sterilization.
Quotes from Darwin’s 'Descent of Man,' 1871
“The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the Gorilla.”
"It is generally admitted that with women the powers of
intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly
marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are
characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state
of civilization. The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the
two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he
takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason,
or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands."
You decide…
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the only scientific explanation for the spectacular diversity of life on Earth.
Propoganda. It is neither the only explanation nor is it scientific.
Creationism, including Intelligent Design, does not offer a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. By invoking the act of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer as the explanation for life's diversity, Creationism invokes a cause that lies outside our powers of observation and thus outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Agreed. Creationism is not testable in full. However hypothesis’ can be derived at that can be scientifically tested and seen to support Creationism. This makes the evidence FOR Creation scientific, but Creation itself remains faith. The catch is, the EXACT SAME thing goes for evolution. Creation is no more and no less scientific as is evolution. If one faith is taught so should the other.
My personal prefrence, however, would be to have only the facts taught as facts and students taught that by looking at the facts through different presuppositions, different possibilities arrise. To find the actual truth, ALL of these possibilities should be persued for the greatest understanding of the world around us. Not just one, dogmaticly held possibility.
For 150 years since the publication of Darwin's "Origins of Species", the theory of evolution by natural selection has not been seriously challenged by any other scientific explanation. Evolution serves as the foundation for all of modern biology, including research critical to human welfare, medicine and the fight against disease.
False and false. First, It very much has been challenged by an an equally scientific explanation as evolution. The problem arrises in that creationists admit that the facts are facts and that the conclusion they arrive at is based on (not blind) faith. However, evolutionists refuse to admit that the same, insist their conclusion is based on their faith in naturalisn, humanism and universitarinism.
This defines the creation verses evolution debate and why it is so heated. Evolutionists refuse to admit the truth and insist their conclusions are not arrived at on faith in these aspects but are indeed fact themselves. This leaves the creationist with one of two options:
1) Take the truthful approach, admit what is fact and what is a conclusion arrived at by viewing the facts through a preconcieved belife, and have the evolutionists then claim it is science verses religion.
2) Take the equally innaccurate approach of claiming that since the evolutionist insists that his view is both factual and scientific, that since evolution and creation are equally based on fact vs. faith, therefore Creation is also just as factual and scientific.
The first option sets up an inpenetrable obstacle that sets creation up as the loser by default. The second option is also hard to argue because both sides argue in favor of something that is not true. It’s an option neither can win since both start with a false basis. The only option where truth and progress can be arrived at is that both sides state only facts as facts and admit that their conclusion comes through their faithfully accepted starting point. Unfortunately, one side refuses this approach because it opens the door that the otherside may be right. This results in children walking through museums being indoctrinated into the faith of the one with the most money who appeals most to the dogma of committee running that particular museum.
Arthur Smith
11/21/05
