|
|
|
Evolution and Fallacy
The evolutionary model of
thinking, particularly in fields such as Paleotology (the study of
fossils), Paleoanthropology (the study of human fossils) and Geology
(the study of the earth), is an endless knot of cyclic thinking.
Doubt it, do you? Deny it, do you? Let's think logically about it.
The evolutionist starts with a pre-concieved notion of earth's history.
The slow, gradual progression dictated in the Geologic Column over
millions of years. (and no, we're not going to once address the
circularity of the Column itself)
According to the Geologic Column, humans don't appear in the sequential
layers until the late Pliocene epoch of the Tertiary period roughly 3
million years ago.
According to the theory, man and apes evolved from a common ancestor,
something which the late G.G. Simpson called "pussyfooting." He stated:
"In fact, that earlier ancestor
would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone
who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular
usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or sucessively both). It
is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed
investigator to say otherwise." --G.G. Simpson, "The World into
Which Darwin Led Us," Science,
131:966-969
The concept that is believed and taught widely is that man evoloved out
of a more primitive, savage, ape-like, barbaric animal through a slow
series of steps.
Regardless of the fact that no such series of steps has been found,
this is a dangerous assumption. Why?
Well, consider that it is only acurate if it actually happened that way.
And of course the evolutionist will reply, "well duh. But if it isn't
true, the evidence will be found and the theory falsified." This would
be true...if the evolutionists approached it objectively, and that, as
I intend to show, is impossible for the evolutionist to do.
The first huge problem is the evolutionist's assumptions. They assume
that the Geologic Column is accurate and each layer does represent a
gradual time-period...and that man evolved in the way the theory states.
Then they go into the field and look at it <I>through their
assumptions.</I> Why is this a problem? Well, they're going to
interprete the fossils from the frame of mind that in the past man was:
1. More primitive
2. Unable to make advanced or specialized tools
3. New to the evolutionary scene and cannot be lower than the Pliocene
Epoch layer
4. More ape-like
So for example, if an evolutionist were to find a Neandertal with tools
that the theory states he could not have made, theories are developed
to attempt to "explain away" this anomaly to the precious theory, such
as reworking or downwashing, both of which are illogical and silly.
THEN the artifacts and fossils are reconstructed (put back together)
based upon the assumptions of the theory for that layer. Of course, the
evolutionist then proudly states, "see, here is proof of evolution."
No, what we have is proof that evolution is an unfalsifiable
naturalistic philosophy not a real scientific theory. Its the classic
"begging the question" senario.
Begging the question can be illustrated best by this example:
A man is walking down the street snapping his fingers. This is quietly
observed several times by others, and finally a pedestrian approached
the man and asked, "Sir, why are you snapping your fingers?"
"Why," the man said, "to keep away the elephants."
"But there aren't any elephants for hundreds of miles," protested the
pedestrian.
"Yes," exclaimed the man happily. "Works, doesn't it?" (M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention, 1992, pg. 19)
Unfortunately this "begging the question" type of assumption has led to
improper reconstruction and interpretation of fossils, whether innocent
or intentional.
Dr. Jack Cuozzo has uncovered serious tampering of Neandertal fossils
in order to make them more ape-like.
He states: "It [the Neanderthal
skull] didn't look like the drawing at all!!... With great trepidation,
I first checked the real photos of Pech in the illustrations in the
back of the <I>Neanderthal Centenary</I>.... There was no
mistaking it, this actually was the Pech child.... For a moment my mind
was unable to entirely comprehend what I was really observing.... this
would be a major clash with E. Patte's reconstruction and evolutionary
theory... The exact same thing happened with the famous La
Chapelle-aux-Saints skull and jaws."--Jack Cuozzo,
<I>Buried Alive</I>, 1998, pg. 38-39 (he has clear
photographs for each of his points, allowing the reader to read what
he's saying and compare it to the photos)
Unfortunately, this leaves us in the position of being unable to
believe the paleoanthropology field in its analysis of fossils due to a
philosophical "blind-spot."
I'll give an example:
The popular magazine Scientific
American stated in 1999 "Vindija
has also yielded intriguing bone and stone tools, found in association
with the Neanderthal fossils, that exhibit a sophisticated workmanship
broadly characteristic of early modern humans. But whether these tools
were discovered in their original contexts is the subject of debate:
the seasonal freezing and thawing of the ground may have mixed the
layers up..." --Scientific
American, Dec, 1999
Notice what happens. They find Neanderthals which, according to their
assuption lived around ~150,000 to ~20,000 years ago in the Pleistocene
epoch. They still feel that Neanderthal is still less advanced than us
in language and motor skills, weren't very intelligent and were overall
rather primitive (contrary to all evidence). They also find bone and
stone tools of a "sophisticated workmanship" found "in association"
with (aka right next to) the Neanderthal remains.
Watch this carefully. They have their theory's assumptions, and also
evidence to the contrary. So the evolutionist waves his magic wand and
claims that they may have been displaced (mixed up) the layers.
But wait, if mere freezing and thawing can mix up layers that easily
you have a problem, because now you don't have your layers neatly lined
up you don't know what layer the Neanderthal fossils came from either.
Therefore one cannot know the age of the bones. And actually, freezing
and thawing happens over most of the earth at least twice a year. Therefore
(if such displacement actually occured) all the geologic ages of all
the layers is called into doubt.
No doubt by this time the arduent defender of evolution has protested
"but creation begs the question too!"
Fair comment. Let's look at the assumptions of the Creationist.
The Creationist assumes:
1. Man has always lived on the earth
2. Man lived before and after the flood
3. Man has always been intelligent
4. Man is slowly going down hill in genetics, life-expectancy, age, and
intelligence due to the fall
5. Post-flood man had to reinvent the technology they previously had
and so lived in caves and made stone tools for a time
From this we can see that the creationist view fits the facts (eg.
Neanderthals living in caves, having primitive tools, and living to
great ages) far better than the evolutionary philosophy.
Written by Adam Ross
|
