How the Anti-Evolution Debate Has Evolved

In this last month of the year, when many Americans' thoughts are turning to holidays -- and what to call them -- we may miss another large story about the intersections of religion and public life. Last week a federal appeals court in Atlanta listened to oral arguments about a sticker pasted, and now removed, from suburban Cobb County, Georgia’s high school science textbooks warning that evolution is a "theory, not a fact." The three-judge panel will take their time deciding the complex issues in the case. But on Tuesday, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled the Dover Area ( Penn.) School Board’s oral disclaimers about scientific evolution to be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The school district's statement to students and parents directed them to an "alternative" theory, that of Intelligent Design (ID); the court ruled found "that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." (Kitzmiller opinion, p. 31.) Apparently in a case about evolution, genealogical metaphors are unavoidable.

Seemingly every news story about the modern trials feels it necessary to refer to the 1925 Tennessee Monkey Trial, the clash of the larger-than-life legal and political personalities of William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow in the prosecution of high school teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of state law. As an historian who has written about evolution, education, and the era of the Scopes trial, I will admit the continuities between 1925 and today can seem striking. But, these continuities are deceiving. Though the modern court challenges still pit scientists supporting evolution against some parents, churches, and others opposing its unchallenged place in public school curriculum; the changes in the last eighty years seem even stronger evidence for a form of legal or cultural evolution.

First, the continuities. In the late 19th century religious commentators like the southern Methodist editor and professor Thomas O. Summers, Sr. loved to repeat a little ditty: "When doctors disagree,/ disciples then are free" to believe what they wanted about science and the natural world. Modern anti-evolutionists, most prominently under the sponsorship of Seattle's Discovery Institute, urge school boards to "teach the controversy" about evolution, purposefully inflating disagreements among scientists about the particulars of evolutionary biology into specious claims that evolutionary biology is a house of cards ready to fall at any time. The court in the Dover case concluded that although there were some scientific disagreements about evolutionary theory, ID is "an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion" not science. In a second continuity, supporters of ID reach back, even before Darwin, to the 19th century theology of William Paley, who pointed to intricate structures like the human eye as proof of God's design of humans and the world. Though many ID supporters are circumspect about the exact identity of the intelligent designer, it seems unlikely that the legions of conservative Christian supporters of ID are assuming that Martians, time-travelers, or extra-terrestrial meatballs could be behind the creation and complexity of their world.

While these issues suggest that the Scopes Trial is still relevant and would seem to offer support for the statement most often quoted to me by first year history students on why they should study history -- because it repeats itself -- this new act in the drama shows some remarkable changes. Arguing that a majority of parents in any given state, acting through legislatures, could outlaw evolution because it contradicted their religious beliefs, William Jennings Bryan campaigned successfully in Tennessee and several other states to ban the teaching of evolution and to strike it from state-adopted textbooks.

Legal challenges to the Tennessee law never made it to the federal courts, but the constitutional hurdles for anti-evolutionists grew higher in 1968, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas. that an Arkansas law very similar to the Tennessee statute was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The law's purpose, the court found, was expressly religious. So anti-evolution was forced to evolve, seeking a new form more likely to pass constitutional muster. Enter Creation Science, a movement that added scientific language to the book of Genesis, and demanded that schools provide "equal time" to both Creation Science and biological evolution. Creation Science is an important transitional fossil of the anti-evolution movement, demonstrating two adaptations: first, the adoption of scientific language sought to shield the religious purpose of the statute and second, the appeal to an American sense of fairness in teaching both sides of an apparent controversy. The Supreme Court in 1987 found this new evolution constitutionally unfit, overturning a Louisiana law (Edwards v. Aguillard).

Since the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard decision, the anti-evolution movement has attempted several new adaptations, all of which show direct ties to previous forms. The appeal to public opinion has grown: recent national opinion polls reveal that nearly two-thirds of Americans (and even higher numbers of Alabamians) support teaching both scientific evolution and creationism in public schools. School board elections and textbook adoption battles show the strength of these arguments in a democratic society. The new variants have been far more successful at clothing themselves in the language -- but not the methods -- of science. Whether by rewriting state school standards to teach criticisms of scientific evolution (as in Ohio or Kansas) or in written disclaimers to be placed in school textbooks (as in Alabama or Cobb County, Georgia) or in the now discredited oral disclaimers of the Dover Area School Board, the religious goal has been the same: by casting doubt on scientific evolution, they hope to open room to wedge religion back into public school curricula. [Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project".] But as the court in yesterday's Dover case correctly concluded, Intelligent Design is "an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion" not science. Old arguments of a religious majority, though still potent in public debate, have again proven constitutionally unfit; Creationists and other anti-evolutionists will now have to evolve new arguments to survive constitutional tests.

That's because my examples dont need to be refuted.

Nothing is more important to a persons understanding of life and living than his own answers to the three great questions: where am I from?; who am I?; where am I going? This is an important issue for the last 100 years, for a system of belief, known as evolution has permeated our society and way of thinking. I believe in creation, not evolution. I believe either system must be accepted by faith, for neither fits the scientific model. For either to be a theory, they must be repeatable events, observable events. Creation as taught in the Bible was only observed by God and His angels. Evolution by definition, happened when no one was around, and then continued so slowly that no one would be able to discern that evolution occurred, therefore it is also a non-observable event. I believe that whichever belief you hold, when completely understood, will guide your thinking and behavior and ultimately determine your destiny.

When speaking of creation, I define creation as the definite and deliberate act of God causing the beginning of life and material existence of all things in the universe having taken place in a literal six-day period. Evolution I define as the random gathering of individual molecules and elements that by random, chance accumulation formed the material world, and through random, chance events governed by natural laws eventually caused a collection of molecules to become a living organism which in turn progressed through another series of random, chance events expressed over hundreds of millions of years governed by survival of the fittest to eventually appear as life as we know it.

" Where did I come from" starts the argument. If created by God, then we are here for a purpose, a part of a divine plan that God has for all souls in the universe. Our original ancestors disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and became separated from God because of their sins. God instituted the idea of sacrificing an innocent animal to take the place of death for the persons who sinned. The death of an innocent savior, Jesus Christ, fulfilled this need for reconciliation toward God.

If we evolved, then we are here by chance and for no other reason. This means that there is no divine plan for mankind along with no moral absolutes. If the evolutionist believes in God, it can't be a very powerful God if he had no hand in our very beginning and probably has no idea what our future holds.

" Who am I? ", deals with today. With faith in a creator God, I recognize that I owe my very existence to him along with my eternal destiny. In times past, God spoke to us through his prophets until the time of the Bible actually being written and then compiled as we have it today. Many times it is written that God's word is eternal, not conditional, and therefore is applicable to life today.

If evolution is true, then there is no objective standard to follow at any time. Morals become relative and, humanity becomes hypocritical when it comes to obeying laws. A new moral standard will arise someday and put out the old out-moded one. Mankind will be on one big ego trip psychologically, thinking itself to be better and smarter and more in touch with reality than any previous generations. Life itself would lose all important meaning with only instant gratification the driving force. Any logic-based system of morality would have no feet to stand on, for it would be based only on argument, not divine revelation.

" Where am I going? ", is the final argument. God told us that the only way to be with him at death is to base our salvation on the fact that Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross, taking the penalty for our sins, a penalty that we honestly deserve, dying for us so that we may live with him. Not in our good works, but whether we put our trust in the sacrifice that God provided for us by sending his son to die in our place. Sin was brought in the world by Adam, Christ died for those sins. If creation is true, then so is the fall in the Garden of Eden. If that is true, then we must need a savior.

If evolution is true, then where are we going? Existence of God is brought to a level of superstition, and along with that the need of a savior becomes ridiculous. With no Adam and Eve, and therefore no sin in the Garden of Eden who needs atonement? Often is heard how primitive life survived in a primordial soup, a kind of slime. From slime to man means, in time, man will evolve into a God-like state, having a superior mind and intellect. This divine man is as far ahead of us on the evolutionary scale as we are from the worm. Do worms go to heaven? Will this divine man wink at our beliefs in an afterlife?

As a child, we are told to obey authority figures like our parents and policemen. When we started school, those authority figures became our teachers and our principals. When we questioned the teachers and our textbooks, the final authority became the textbook author and the scientist; the all-knowing, objective human beings who would never steer us wrong because they had studied all the facts before coming up with their conclusions. After studying science myself for a few years, along with writings from scientists that refute another's work, I have arrived at my own conclusion: that as a society, we have become too willing to accept as fact what someone says about a certain subject because of that persons credentials and too willing to ignore our own doubts about these statements that are made because of our own lack of education in these areas.

One of these areas most affected by our easy acceptance of 'scientific fact' is evolution, and specifically, human evolution. Many scientists and farmers are aware that when two animals of the same species mate, their offspring will carry characteristics of both parents, yet be unique in it's own way. Scientists in the 19th century took this line of thinking further and reasoned that these inherited characteristics would make the animal more able or less able to survive, with the weaker characteristics eventually causing the demise of the offspring that carried the weaker traits, and the survival of the offspring that carried the stronger characteristics of the parents. Herbert Spencer, the founder of 'Social Darwinism', took these observed events and applied this logic to humans. Using the racist thinking of the time, many believed that since the European race, (white), was obviously more superior to the African race, (black), in areas of speech, culture, and intelligence, Spencer thought evolution had to be the cause and used his brand of evolutionary thinking to influence many Europeans.

These evolutionary and racist descriptions of cultural growth influenced Europe up to the time of Adolph Hitler, who used evolution to explain the differences and abnormalities of the 'inferior' races such as Jews, Gypsies, and Negroes. This type of thinking was also present in the United States where it was concentrated in the area of perpetuating our own apartheid system in the south. It is also the driving force behind Margaret Sangers push for abortion and forced sterilization of American Blacks in the early 1900's.

These events happened because people listened to the authority figures instead of their own conscience. What was worse, these `facts' of evolution were introduced into the public school system and taught as fact instead of as theory. Up until this time, creation was taught according to the Bible account in the United States, yet when 'science' stepped forward and said different, the die was cast. The Genesis account was put in doubt, and since no house can stand without a foundation, the historical accuracy of the Bible became questionable, along with it's importance in one's life.

Almost all evidence for human evolution is extremely questionable. Scientists theorize that we evolved from quadrepedal ape like creatures, (hominoids), into bi-pedal erect walking ape like creatures, (hominids), to eventually become ourselves. Many fossils have been found that are claimed to represent the various stages of evolution from quadruped to biped, yet there are 'missing links' between these forms.

Evolution demands that these missing links are authentic, for they would represent the transition from one group into a higher group. What does Charles Darwin say about missing links? " The main cause of innumerant intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the place of and supplant their parent forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so much the number of intermediate varieties , which formally existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geologic formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record." (The Origin Of The Species, chap. 10).

Here, Darwin states that if evolution is true, then there must be numberless intermediate links between species. Yet, Darwin himself admits that there are NO finely graduated links between these species that have been discovered. He then goes on to say that the geologic record is hiding these transitional forms from us. How could a belief system, based on unobserved events with no proof to back it up, become so prevalent in society? In the 100 years that have passed since Darwin, we have more than quadrupled the number of fossil species that we have found and these links still have yet to be announced. Why was Darwin's theory accepted at all when by education he was not a scientist, but a theologian?

If these links were found, how would science know where to classify these fossils? Darwinian evolutionary change happens so slow that the changes would be so minute that it would be impossible to distinguish one species from another, let alone when one species became another.

Modem science has proven through the archaeological record that the geologic column does not contain these missing links or any evidence for gradual change via evolution. Do the evolutionists give up? Nope, they just change their theories.

Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has introduced his theory to explain the gaps between species. 'Punctuated Equilibrium ' is the new theory that species remain the same for long periods of time, and then through sudden, short bursts of evolutionary lightning lasting maybe 500,000 years or so, then reappear as new, different species. This theory explains the gaps in fossil record because there wouldn't be enough time for significant fossils to be formed in order for us to find them 5 million years later!

Darwin said his fossils were there but we didn't find them yet. Stephen Jay Gould says the fossils aren't there, that's why there are gaps in the fossil record. If I told you I did my homework, but the dog ate it, would you believe me? Once again, the proof, is that there is no proof. Evolution is such a fun theory, you can think up any zany idea from microbes on meteors to aliens with a mission to populate the universe and 'science' will back you up; but what happens if you say, " In the beginning, God......

Neither creation or evolution has ever been witnessed by man. Both beliefs must be accepted by faith. Yet, in order to know which belief is to be held, all evidence must be weighed from one belief against the other.

A literal 6 day creation cannot be proved exactly, but a sudden appearance of life forms on earth, as evidenced by the fossil record, would provide fuel in any debate against an evolutionist as to whether life evolved slowly over millions of years, or appeared suddenly.

Evolution, whether sudden, (punctuational), or gradual,(Darwinian), would require an appearance of life from non-life forms. Yet, is this possible? Spontaneous generation has never been observed. This was proved by Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister in the 1800's when we discovered germs. Life only appears when life already existed. This is called the Law of Biogenesis.

Another way to approach this argument is to refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin stated it this way: " There is no natural process, the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this means that energy will turn to a state of entropy, one of less complexity and greater disorder along with a lack of usefulness unless acted on by an outside force that is directing this energy by means of an ordered arrangement that controls this energy in a useful way. Therefore, the amount of useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately, the amount of energy available would be zero. Due to this fact, it must be understood that the natural state of any natural system is one of disorder unless acted upon by an outside force in an intelligent, constructive manner. Any system left to itself will begin to degenerate. If you clean your room, it will get dirty again. Any life form alive today will eventually die. Chemical compounds left to themselves will break down into their parent atoms. Energy that is directed into these systems in an intelligent manner can cause greater complexity in the organism, yet when the intelligent influx of energy is removed, the system will begin to deteriorate immediately.

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, but lets keep going.

With who would this life form mate? This first living form would need to be asexual or have a mate, which was it? What is the proof of either? Asexuality itself demands a complex system of operation, a complex series of commands to initiate. Since we are talking about the first life form, it had to be asexual unless you also want to believe that not only did a life form evolve from inorganic material, but it's mate simultaneously evolved right alongside, right at the same time, in the same conditions, with completely compatible organic operation.

What did it eat? Think, not only did this life form need a mechanism of ingesting material to be processed as energy, but that material had to be nearby. How could all these internal organs evolve by chance? Think, not only the internal organs evolved, but so did the nerve system that controls these organs along with the organism's brain along with the intelligence to operate these organs in a manner that allowed the organism to survive. If you don't believe that was necessary, then you must also believe that some chemical process happened by chance that processed whatever came down the life form's `mouth' in a manner that was compatible with the organism. What happens to this energy while being digested? We call this excess material waste, and it is poisonous. How was this waste removed from the organism? How did this organism not only evolve with a mouth, but also with a method of releasing waste?

How did it survive in it's primitive surroundings? How did any intelligent information get to these important functional systems in a manner that was beneficial to the organism? What type of brain and nervous system evolves by chance? How did something as complex as the eye happen by chance? If the organism didn't have eyes, how did it know when to open it's mouth when it was time to eat? How did hunger pains evolve?

All of these things speak of intelligence. 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. A dead body is dead; WHY? It has all the chemicals necessary to support life already existing in a complete form with nothing missing, right?

Let's suppose this life did survive. Mendels' 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.

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.

What causes variation and change in life? DNA. DNA 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."

Evolutionists claim the universe is 10 to 20 Billion years old. There is less than 10^17 seconds in 20 billion years. Even by a trial and error combination occurring every second from the beginning of time till now, there is still no hope.

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.

Let's turn to the origin of man, and specifically, the fossil record of `Man'. Many people believe we have `proof' of evolution through the fossil record, yet is this true? What is the facts surrounding fossils that are presumed to portray man?

Ramapithicus, often pictured as walking erect, has been degrade to the status of extinct ape. It's teeth and dental characteristics are similar to the gelada gibbon.(Richard Leaky/Roger Lewin Origins P.68). It has also been declared to be part of orangutan lineage.(Science News Vol 121 #5 Jan 30, 1982 P.84)

Australopithecine: not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. "The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)

Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz:( Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, "Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40

Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, "Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)

Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's. Originally, the evidence consisted of a single tooth which was declared to have characteristics similar to human and ape, and was named Sianthropus Pekinesis. Later, a skull cap was dug out of rock that the finder, Davidson Black declared that the skull size was about 960 cc, just between ape and human, and therefore a missing link. However, visiting scientists such as Grafton Elliot Smith, Marcellin Boule, and von Koenigswald believed that that size was much too large and that the skull was that of an ape. Additional evidence discovered through blasting included broken, shattered skulls with the base of the skulls broken off numbering no more than 14 total skulls, jawbones, portions of thigh bones, two upper arm bones, a wristbone, and 147 teeth and thousands of bones of animals including elephant and deer. Moreso, the skulls were mixed in with the animal bones inside the rock and showed no progression, no change over time even though the depth of the excavation was 150 feet vertically. Unfortunately, the human remains were lost during W.W.II. Clear evidence at the same site showed true man along with a 23 ft. deep ash pile and a limestone mine. All of the skulls of Sianthropus were broken in the same manner as those of monkeys who are eaten for their brains.(Ian Taylor, "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the World Order", Toronto Canada, TFE pub. 1984 p. 234-241) Among the interesting facts surrounding these site, is that for the most part, only Skulls were found, not complete skeletons, until the finding of 6 almost complete fully human skeletons. Other evidences existed for fully human interaction at the site, for there were numerous other animal bones there inside the ash pit. The ash pit was used to a degree that minerals on the sides of the pit were fused due to the heat of the pit.

Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap dug up in 1891 on the banks of the Solo River in Java and a femur that was dug up 50 feet away and year later. It is claimed that the finder, Eugene Dubois, admitted the skull cap was from a gibbon like ape.(Eugene Dubois, "On the gibbon like appearance of Pithecanthropus Erectus", Koniklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Vol 38 Amsterdam Koninklijke Akademie 1935 P.578). Additional questions arise from Dubois calculations. The date chosen by Dubois is suspect, for Dubois was a doctor, a self described anatomist, yet it is he that claimed the 500,000 year old date to make his fossil the missing link.
"Dubois claimed that the skull cap and femur came from a rock stratum known as the Trinil layer, named after a nearby village in central Java. He believed that these rocks were below what is known as the Pleistocene-Pliocene (Tertiary) boundary. Dubois was convinced that `real' humans evolved later in the Middle Pleistocene. Hence, his dating of Java Man was quite appropriate for a missing link. however, his interpretation was not exactly straightforward, as the man who later found other `Java Men' G.H.R. von Koenigswald, tells us:
"When Dubois issued his first description of the fossil Javanese fauna he designated it Pleistocene. But no sooner had he discovered his Pithecanthropus than the fauna had suddenly to become Tertiary. He did everything in his power to diminish the Pleistocene character of the fauna..."

"The criterion was no longer to be the fauna as a whole, but only his Pithecanthropus . Such a primitive form belonged to the Tertiary!"
"Dubois view...did not go uncontested. But there was no getting at him until he had described his whole collection and laid all his cards on the table. That was why we all had to wait for a study of his finds, and to wait in vain." (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, Meeting Prehistoric Man, Michael Bullock, Trans. , New York, Harper and Brothers, 1956. 38-39).
Not all scientists at the time of Java man agreed that this was a transitional form of any kind, but truly human. "Sir Arthur Kent, the famed Cambridge University anatomist was asked to comment on Dubois paper. He replied that the chief question to be settled on was whether or not the skull cap was human. In answering that question, one had to determine the criterion of a human skull versus an ape skull. To his mind, there were two basic differences: first, the very large cranial capacity of human skulls as compared to ape skulls, and second, the large muscular ridges and processes, connected with the chewing apparatus, which ape skulls have compared to human skulls. On both points Keith declared that the Java man skull cap was distinctly human. (Alan Houghton Brodrick, Early Man, London, Hutchinson's Scientific and Technical Publications, 1948, p85). The cranial capacity of the anthropoid apes never exceeds 600cc and averages 500cc. On the other hand, the cranial capacity of Dubois' Java Man was estimated at 1000cc, which is well within the range of humans living today."
"In 1938, Franz Weidenreich described several femoral fragments of Peking Man. (Both Peking Man and Java Man are now called Homo Erectus). Whereas the skulls of Peking Man and Java Man were quite similar, the Peking Man femora differed from the Java Man femur in the very places where the Java Man femur was similar to modern humans. Since the association of the Peking Man skulls and femora was undisputed, Weidenreich concluded that the Java Man femur was not a true Homo Erectus femur but was instead a modern one. (Bert Theunissen, Eugene Dubois and the Ape Man from Java, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989, p121)."
"The most recent assessment of the Java Man Femur comes to the same conclusion. Michael Day and T.I. Molleson compared the Java Man femur, the Peking femora, and the femur known as Olduvai Hominid 28 (OH-28) found by Louis Leaky in Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, in unquestioned association with other homo erectus material. They state that OH-28 and the Peking Man femora, although truly human, are much more similar to each other than either is to the Java femur. Their conclusion is that OH-28 and Peking Man represents a Homo Erectus anatomy, whereas the Java femur is more modern."
"Here then, is the problem faced by evolutionist paleoanthropology. If the Java skull cap and femur actually belong together, then it is difficult to maintain a species difference between homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens. The distinction would be an imaginary one, and it would compromise these fossils as evidence for human evolution. If, on the other hand, the skull cap belongs to Homo Erectus, and the femur belongs to Homo Sapiens, it shows that these two forms likely lived together as contemporaries. It likewise removes these fossils as evidence for human evolution, because fluorine analysis indicates that the fossils are both the same age."(Koenigswald, p34)(Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention, 1992)

Nebraska Man was a local fossil, the entire evidence consisting of a single tooth. Nebraska Man was pictured on the front page of Life magazine in a hunter-gatherer mode. During the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, Nebraska Man was labeled a genuine missing link. The tooth turned out to be a tooth of a pig. (Henry Fairfield Osborne, Hesperopithicus Haroldcookii, the first anthropoid primate found in North America, Science Vol 60 #1427 May 3, 1922 P.463)(William K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus apparently not ape or man" Science Vol 66 #17209 Dec 16, 1927)

Piltdown Man, a deliberate hoax some blame on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, had people fooled for years and even had its picture on Life Magazine.(Joseph Wiener "The Piltdown Forgery" London Oxford U. Press)

Neanderthal Man was found in Neanderthal Valley in West Germany. Long accepted as a missing link, Neanderthal man has been proven to be human, very similar to Europeans today, yet with proven diseases such as rickets, syphilis, and arthritis.(Carl Hodge "Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told" The Arizona Republic Vol 99 #186 P. B-5)

There is no proof that man evolved from an ape like creature. In fact, many fossils of man have been found, dated to coincide with the ages of these extinct apes:

Petralona Man, found in a stalagmite 700 thousand years old.(Current Anthropology Vol 22 #3 June 1981 P.287)

Human Jawbone found in China in Yangtze River dated 2 million years old.(Java Man is only 500 thousand)(Mesa Tribune Mesa Arizona Nov 20 1988)

Also, there are some findings that contradict all known science:

Human skeleton found 1. 6 million years old, by Richard Leaky( Wash. Post Oct 19, 1984)

Evolutionists themselves disagree on just what the fossils mean and just how old they are. Consider the following:

RUINED FAMILY TREE: "either we toss out this [skull 11470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million year old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S.B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged to an orderly sequence of evolutionary change." NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, June 1973, p.819

HUMAN BRAIN: "Leakey further describes the whole shape of the brain case [skull 11470] as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the heavy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bone characteristics of Homo Erectus." SCIENCE NEWS, April 3, 1972, p. 324

"OLD" MODERN MAN: Louis Leakey, "In 1933 I published on a small fragment of jaw we call Homo Kanamens 1s, and I said categorically that this is not a near-man or ape, this is a true member of genus Homo. There were stone tools with it too. The age was probably around 2.5 to 3 million years. It was promptly put upon a shelf by my colleagues, except for two of them. The rest said it must be placed in a "suspense account". Now, 36 years later, we have proved I was right." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.156

THE OLDEST MAN: "[African footprints]... they belonged to the genus Homo (or true man), rather than to man-apes (like Australopithecus, who was once thought to be the forerunner of Man but is now regarded as a possible evolutionary dead end)... they were 3.35 to 3.75 million years old... they would, in Mary Leakey's words, be people 'not unlike ourselves'" TIME, Nov. 10, 1975, p.93

TOO HUMAN TOO OLD: Russell H Tuttle, Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Affiliate Scientist, Primate Research Center, Emory University, "In sum, the 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern Humans... If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus... in any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind..." NATURAL HISTORY, March 1990, p. 64

Human footprints, dated 3.75 million years old at Latolil (Nature Vol28 #5702 Mar 22.1979, P.317-323)

MODERN AND TALL: Richard Leakey, "... the boy from Tukana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age... he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo Erectus to contradict a long held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia," NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, Nov. 1985, p. 629

MAN EVEN BEFORE "LUCY": Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC, "...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi, existed at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile Australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern Humans at four and a half million years..." AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May 1979, p.274

HENRY M. MCHENRY, U of C, DAVIS, "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo Sapiens..." SCIENCE, Vol. 190, p.28

WILLIAM HOWELLS, HARVARD, "With a date of about 4.4 million years, [KP 2711] could not be distinguished from Homo Sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson or myself in 1967 (or by much searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at the time, time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element." HOMO ERECTUS, 1981, pp. 79-80

What do evolutionists and other well respected scientists say about evolution? Evolutionists themselves disagree, and those with scientific backgrounds often deny the evidence of evolution. Consider these sources:

The Dissidents No less an authority than the world-renowned paleontologist (with Dr. Colin Patterson) for the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. N. Etheridge, has remarked: "Nine tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, their is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (quoted by Lindsay Gordon, Evolution - The Incredible Hoax, 1977)

Sir Ernest Chain, 1945 Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin, in D.T. Rosevear's Scientists critical of Evolution, July 1980, p.4: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."

Dr. Werner von Braun, one of the leading scientists in NASA's Apollo project (many of you interested in space exploration know the name), wrote the following in a letter to the California State Board of Education, September 14, 1972: "To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?... We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life, and man in the science classroom, It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance."

Dr. Pierre P. Grasse, editor of the twenty-eight volumes of "Traite de Zoologie" and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences is considered to be the most distinguished of French zoologists. His conclusions? "The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism." (The Evolution of Living Organisms)

P. Lemoine, a president of the Geologic Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, has concluded: "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate.... It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible." (Introduction: De L'Evolution? in 5 Encyclopedie Francaise)

Dr. Hubert P. Yockey, A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis bt Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1977, Vol. 67, p.398: "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

Dr. Derek V. Ager, Geologist, Imperial College, London, Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, 1976, pp.132 - 133: "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked."

Dr. Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, evolutionist, concludes his 1986 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, thus: "Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.... The truth is that despite the prestige of evolutionary theory and the tremendous intellectual effort directed towards reducing living systems to the confines of Darwinian thought, nature refuses to be imprisoned. The "mystery of mysteries" - the origin of new beings on earth - is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle".

Finally, the aforementioned Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, remarked in a 1981 lecture at the American Museum of Natural History: "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing... that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not be taught in high school."

Have there been any strange findings that disagree with evolutionary thought about how old mankind is?

Gold Chains found in coal.(Morrisonville Times, Morrisonville M Jun 11 1891)

Metal bell shaped vessel found in solid rock.(Scientific American Vol7 June 1851 P 298-299)

Another important topic is the age of the earth. Is the earth billions of years old? The earth's magnetic field was measured accurately since 1835. Since 1835 the earth's magnetic field has decreased by 6%. Physicist Dr. Thomas Bames concluded that the half life for the magnetic field was 830 to 1400 years. That means that 830 to 1400 years ago, the magnetic field was twice as strong as it is today. Another 831 to 1400 years before that, it was 4 times as strong.

According to Dr. Bames," If we went back about 10,000 years, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as the field in a magnetic star. A magnetic star is like our sun: it has a nuclear power source. Surely our Earth never had a nuclear power source like the sun. Surely our earth never had a magnetic field stronger than a star. That would limit the age of the earth to 10,000 years. Science could definitely say, from the greatest physical evidence,(the kind of evidence and physics that we design radar sets with, and communication sets with), that the earth's magnetic field cannot be more than about 6 to 15 thousand years old." Thomas Bames, The Earth a young Planet? Films for Christ Assoc.)

Another topic would be population growth. There have been estimates of population growth as high as 2% per year. Assuming that population grows at only .5% per year, it would take only 4000 years to achieve today's population beginning from a single couple. Many creationists feel that Noah's flood was about 4000 years ago, so this fits creation theory quite nicely. If the Earth is as old as evolutionists claim, and the population grew at .5%, in a million years there would be lOE2100 people! Even if it took a million years to get at our present population, there would have been about 3,000,000,000,000 people before us! Where is the fossil evidence? Where is the cultural evidence?

Another topic is space dust, or debris left over from creation or impacts of meteors or comets. If the Earth or the Moon were as old as evolutionists say, there should be plentiful amounts of dust on the Moon that could have been, measured when we landed there. NASA even put large saucer shaped pads on the LEM so that it would not sink into the soil.

Some say that creation is a religious belief. Only Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe in special creation. Do any religions believe in evolution? How about Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confusionism, Buddism, American Indian Native Religions, Secular Humanism, and Satanism.

To assume that a belief in a creator God would disqualify someone from being a real scientist, consider this list:

JOSEPH LISTER- ANTISEPTIC SURGERY

LOUIS PASTEUR- BACTERIOLOGY

ISAAC NEWTON- CALCULUS

JOHANNA KEEPER- CELESTIAL MECHANICS

ROBERT BOIL- CHEMISTRY

JAMES CLERK MAXWELL-ELECTRODYNAMICS

MICHAEL FARADAY-ELECTROMAGNETICS

AMBROSE FLEMING-ELECTRONICS

LORD KELVIN-ENERGETICS

WILLIAM HERSCHEL-GALACTIC ASTRONOMY

GREGOR MENDEL-GENETICS

DAVINCI-HYDRAULICS

BLAISE PASCAL-HYDROSTATICS

JAMES JOULE-REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS

CHARLES BABBAGE-ACTUARIAL TABLES

JOSEPH HENRY-ELECTRIC MOTOR

SAMUEL F. B. MORSE-TELEGRAPH

I GUESS THE BIBLE'S TRUE AFTER ALL!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.