[Condorman]

I should also point out this, from the same site I reference above:

The evolutionism of Tylor, Morgan, and others of the nineteenth century is largely rejected today. For one thing, their theories cannot satisfactorily account for cultural variation - why, for instance, some societies today are in “upper savagery” and others in “civilization.” The “psychic unity of mankind” or “germs of thought” that were postulated to account for parallel evolution cannot also account for cultural differences. Another weakness in the early evolutionists theories is that they cannot explain why some societies have regressed or even become extinct. Also, although other societies may have progressed to “civilization,” some of them have not passed through all the stages. Thus, early evolutionist theory cannot explain the details of cultural evolution and variation as anthropology now knows them. Finally, one of the most common criticisms leveled at the nineteenth century evolutionists is that they were highly ethnocentric - they assumed that Victorian England, or its equivalent, represented the highest achievement of mankind.

[viaveritasvita]

I earlier referred incorrectly to the one and only creationist group that I'd recommend. Recognizing that this is probably what PH is referring to when he mentioned the repetitive nature of these threads, the correct info: Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA (www.icr.org).