Calling Ronald Wetherington’s Bluffs About Human Evolution (Texas Board of Ed. Testimony)

Discovery Institute ^ | April 9, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[GodGunsGuts]

Texas Hold ’Em Part III: Calling Ronald Wetherington’s Bluffs About Human Evolution in His January Texas State Board of Education Testimony

As a final installment in my “Texas Hold ‘Em” series calling the bluffs of Texas evolutionists, I’d like to highlight one section from Discovery Institute’s rebuttal to Ronald Wetherington’s Testimony before the Texas State Board of Education (TSBOE). Wetherington, who is a professor of anthropology at SMU, testified extensively to the TSBOE about human evolution, his area of expertise. Wetherington stated regarding human origins that we have “arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of any mammal in the world. No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils. … So when people talk about the lack of transitional fossils or gaps in the fossil record, it absolutely is not true.” But a close look at the evidence, as reported in the mainstream scientific literature, shows that it is Wetherington’s talk that is “not true.” As a preliminary example, a 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap” and therefore we are in a situation “[n]ot having any fossils that can serve as missing links." To read the full statement calling Wetherington’s bluff, go to the section of Discovery’s response to Wetherington on his “Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins.”

F. Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins

Prof. Wetherington asserted that when it comes to human evolution, we have “arguably the most complete sequence of fossil succession of any mammal in the world. No gaps. No lack of transitional fossils. … So when people talk about the lack of transitional fossils or gaps in the fossil record, it absolutely is not true.” Though this is supposed to be Wetherington’s area of expertise, again we see him dramatically overstating the evidence as well as failing to acknowledge counter-opinions by experts within his own field.

Wetherington mentioned by name only three allegedly transitional fossil species. However, the quality of these alleged “transitional fossils” leaves much to be desired and their status as human ancestors is in fact disputed by some paleontological data.

The first fossil mentioned by Wetherington was Sahelanthropus tchadensis. But this fossil (also called the “Toumai skull”) is known only from one skull and some jaw fragments, and one leading researcher said “I tend towards thinking this is the skull of a female gorilla.”⁴⁵ Wetherington bluffed when he told the TSBOE that we know this fossil qualifies as a transitional form leading to humans. Indeed, leading paleoanthropologists have warned in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) that tooth and and skull bones alone are insufficient to properly classify or understand a hominid species:

Rather, our results show that the type of craniodental characters that have hitherto been used in hominin phylogenetics are probably not reliable for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships of higher primate species and genera, including those among the hominins.⁴⁶

Another bluff from Wetherington came when he claimed that “Every fossil we find reinforces the sequence that we had previously supposed to exist rather than suggesting something different.” But in fact this Toumai skull, first published in 2002, provides an excellent counterexample to his wildly false assertion. Commenting on the Toumai skull in the journal Nature, leading paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood began an article by observing, “A single fossil can fundamentally change the way we reconstruct the tree of life. He goes on to state:

If we accept these as sufficient evidence to classify S. tchadensis as a hominid at the base, or stem, of the modern human clade, then it plays havoc with the tidy model of human origins. Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age. Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans.⁴⁷

In other words, if we accept the Toumai skull as the stem ancestor of humans, as Professor Wetherington does, then many other alleged hominid species—including the other species mentioned by Wetherington that are discussed below—could not be counted as ancestors of humans.

Professor Wetherington stated that it “is not true” that there are gaps in the fossil record for the origin “for our own species, rather than for some others,” but paleoanthropological expert Wood states that fossils like this show “compelling evidence that our own origins are as complex and as difficult to trace as those of any other group of organisms.”⁴⁸ Indeed, Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that

When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.⁴⁹

Again, it is clear that Wetherington is bluffing to claim there are “no gaps” in the fossil evidence for human evolution. If the Toumai skull represents a transitional fossil which allegedly plugs a “gap” and doesn’t “play havoc” with the proclaimed human evolutionary tree, then the evidence for human evolution must be quite weak indeed.

Wetherington next mentioned Ardipithecus as an alleged transitional form leading to humans—but this fossil too has highly fragmented remains, and has been called a hominid primarily on the basis of some of its teeth.⁵⁰ Its extremely fragmented remains prevent paleoanthropologists from determining much about this species, including questions such as whether it walked upright.⁵¹ Paleoanthropologist Tim White has called the record of early hominids from this period, “a black hole in the fossil record,”⁵² and the few fossils that are known are based upon limited remains wherein it is not possible to make firm conclusions about these fossils.⁵³

Despite the questions about Ardipithecus, Wetherington claimed that it “became Australopithecus afarensis 4 million years ago.” He based this claim (presumably) upon a paper by Tim White in 2006, but this paper starts by admitting that “The origin of Australopithecus, the genus widely interpreted as ancestral to Homo, is a central problem in human evolutionary studies. Australopithecus species differ markedly from extant African apes and candidate ancestral hominids such as Ardipithecus, Orrorin and Sahelanthropus.”⁵⁴ And the evidence that allegedly made one species intermediate was its “masticatory robusticity" (in other words, its ability to chew harder stuff). This does not make for an impressive evolutionary scheme, and again this claim is based entirely upon reconstructed tooth fragments which, as noted, have been highly criticized by leading paleontologists as a form of data on which to base claims of hominid Phylogenetic relationships.⁵⁵

And what about Australopithecus? Australopithecus literally means “Southern Ape,” and despite Wetherington’s claim that there is “no lack of transitional fossils,” there is a stark lack of intermediates between the ape-like australopithecines and the genus Homo. Indeed, in 2004 in his book What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline, the leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated: "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative."⁵⁶

Contrary to Wetherington’s claims that the basic evolutionary hypothesis about the human lineage is never being altered, a 1999 article in Science by leaders in paleoanthropology found that Homo habilis should be classified as an australopithecine,⁵⁷ and an article titled “African fossils paint messy picture of human evolution” reported that how new fossil finds prevented Homo habilis from being part of our family tree:

The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature. In 2000 Leakey found an old H. erectus complete skull within walking distance of an upper jaw of the H. habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis, researchers said.⁵⁸

With habilis removed from our direct ancestry, what exactly is the direct ancestor of Homo linking back to the australopithecines? Two paleoanthropologists wrote in Nature in 2005 that we don’t know the direct ancestor of our genus Homo:

[An early form of Homo] marks such a radical departure from previous forms of Homo (such as H. habilis) in its height, reduced sexual dimorphism, long limbs and modern body proportions that it is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa. Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin “without an ancestor, without a clear past.”⁵⁹

Likewise, an article in the Journal of Human Evolution stated:

The anatomy of the earliest H. sapiens sample indicates significant modifications of the ancestral genome and is not simply an extension of evolutionary trends in an earlier australopithecine lineage throughout the Pliocene. In fact, its combination of features never appears earlier...⁶⁰

These authors said the origin of Homo required “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.” One commentator said this shows a “big bang theory” of human origins because “[t]he first members of early Homo sapiens are really quite distinct from their australopithecine predecessors and contemporaries.”⁶¹

Contrary to this data, Wetherington asserted in his testimony that the origin of our species represents “a gradualistic evolutionary change,” despite the fact that there are clear gaps in the record. Indeed, one paper in the Journal of Human Evolution found that the origin of key features of our genus Homo was anything but gradual: “It appears from the hominid fossil record of pelvic bones that two periods of stasis exist and are separated by a period of very rapid evolution corresponding to the emergence of the genus Homo.”⁶²

In contrast to these tentative admissions from paleoanthropologists, Wetherington makes firm and dogmatic statements that dramatically overstate the fossil evidence for human origins. Compare Wetherington’s dogmatic assertions to the following comment by an editor of Nature: “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations.”⁶³ Clearly Wetherington misrepresented the completeness of the evidence for human evolution, and there are indeed many gaps in the record of human origins.

References Cited:
[45.] Quoting Dr. Brigitte Senut, also stating “One of Dr Senut's colleagues, Dr Martin Pickford, who was in London this week, is also reported to have told peers that he thought the new Chadian skull was from a ‘proto-gorilla’. “ See “Skull find sparks controversy” (July 12, 2002) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2125244.stm

[46.] Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, "How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97(9):5003–5006 (April 25, 2009).

[47.] Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html (emphasis added).

[48.] Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html (emphasis added).

[49.] Richard C. Lewontin, Human Diversity, p. 163 (Scientific American Library: New York NY, 1995).

[50.] Y. Haaile-Selassie, “Late Miocene hominids from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia,” Nature, Vol. 412:178-181 (July 12, 2001).

[51.] See Figure 2, Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html

[52.] A. Gibbons, “In Search of the First Hominids,” Science, 295:1214-1219 (February 15, 2002).

[53.] See Figure 2, Bernard Wood, “Hominid revelations from Chad,” Nature, Vol. 418:133-135 (July 11, 2002) at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/418133a.html

[54.] Tim D. White et al., “Asa Issie, Aramis and the origin of Australopithecus,” Nature, Vol. 440:883-889 (April 13, 2006).

[55.] Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, "How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97(9):5003–5006 (April 25, 2009).

[56.] Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline, pg. 198 (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

[57.] Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, "The Human Genus," Science, Vol. 284:65-71 (April 2, 1999).

[58.] Associated Press, “African fossils paint messy picture of human evolution; who was our ancestor's ancestor?,” International Herald Tribune, at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/08/america/NA-GEN-US-Human-Evolution.php

[59.] Robin Dennell & Wil Roebroeks, “An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa,” Nature, Vol. 438:1099-1104 (Dec. 22/29, 2005) (internal citations removed) (emphasis added).

[60.] Hawks, J., Hunley, K., Sang-Hee, L., Wolpoff, M., “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Evolution,” Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17(1):2-22 (January, 2000).

[61.] “New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution,” (January 10, 2000) at http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html

[62.] F. Marchal, “A New Morphometric Analysis of the Hominid Pelvic Bone,” Journal of Human Evolution, Vol. 38:347-365 (2000).

[63.] H. Gee, “Return to the planet of the apes,” Nature, Vol. 412:131-132 (July 12, 2001).

[gondramB]

>>
My hatred is towards the words and theories that seek to destroy the foundations of the Bible and my God who wrote it through His servants. God said that He created Adam first, and wrote nothing of evolving Adam from an animal. To believe otherwise is to call His word false.

Human Evolution and the God of the Bible are not compatible. And, yes, I hate Human Evolution and I am not ashamed of it. I do not hate Human Evolutionist, I hate the false religion they have been taught. <

Good clarification. If you believe that evolution destroys the foundations of the bible then I understanding your feelings on the matter.

I could explain why I believe in evolution - it came from studying science. I could tell you about my personal conversion. I could explain in detail how I see much of the creation story as a parable appropriate for what the people of the say could understand with their limited math and science.

But that would miss the point.

We don’t have to agree on evolution. And you get to feel about it however you feel.

The question we do need (meaning we in the greater sense) come to a conclusion about is the implication of disagreeing.

I would hope we agree that in religious matters we can leave the government and most part science out - people are entitled to choose their religion and practice it in public whether its praying quietly even in a public school or a town deciding to have a Christmas tree.

Likewise, I would hope that we agree in matters of science and science education policy should be determined by the scientific consensus. For quite some time a strong consensus among the people who study it, say the evidence points to the gradual development of man, not creation and that’s what the schools should teach.

[freedumb2003]

How do you reconcile your love of evolutionism with the truth of Bible.

I shall await answers to my questions, else I will for sure get lost in the conversation.

But thank you for your interest.

[freedumb2003]

Please read the whole thing as it also addresses TToE. Thank you and I hope you had a blessed Easter!

From: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm

It continues to amaze me how many “educated” people do not understand what Science* is or what is meant by the term “scientific method.” The statements of Nobel Prize physicist Percy W. Bridgman1 shows that such ignorance shows no regard for academic stature when he states, “No working scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he interested in whatever method he may be using as method.” What arrogance!2

One of the best descriptions and explanations of the current concept of scientific method is interestingly found in the Appendix E of Frank Wolfs’ website .3

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

But in order to realize whether this is a valid concept or not, we need to understand what Science really is. Here is a typical dictionary definition of Science: “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.”4

Science on the other hand is an interesting definition in that it previously has applied to those fields of study which utilize the scientific method. For physics and chemistry, this is easy, but when we get into archeology, psychology, geology, environmental studies, and so on, the use of scientific methodology becomes less applicable but yet aren’t these still Science? What about archeology where even though one can not perform repeatable experiments we can yet validate hypotheses?

Let’s say that I am an archeologist and that I hypothesize that an ancient culture “X” existed based upon a piece of pottery that I had found and I further hypothesize various characteristics of this culture. Later it is found that I was correct in my hypothesis through continued validation from other findings. I then hypothesize that any culture that can make such pottery will have a high lead content in their remains. Again this is found to be true. These hypotheses have now become theories as they have been verified yet they did not follow the definition of scientific method nor could they. This is Science.

Some may say that in archeology, we use carbon-14 dating (or similar process) which does follow the scientific method. Though archeology does utilize some aspects of other sciences that do follow the scientific method, this is archeology’s use of physics. It is the physics that is following the scientific method in this case, not archeology.

The scientific method is fine for experimentation but it is inadequate in determining what is Science. In the past if a discipline could not be subject to the scientific method, it was not Science. Therefore, I would like to propose that the scientific method should only be applied to experimentation when appropriate and not be used in the determination of what is or is not science, nor should it have any application in defining what is a hypothesis, theory, fact, or law.**

In terms of the definition of what is or is not a Science, we need to find a definition that is timeless and few could argue against. One of the best way to understand the current definition of something is to look at its history (ignorance of the past will lead to mistakes of the future5) but I will leave that for a book on the subject because even though it is engrossing reading, it can get lengthy. I would like to propose that we define Science as the “the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part.”* Though simple, it is an encompassing and elegant definition, as we will see.

Therefore those fields of study which attempt to describe and understand the nature of the universe on a “whole” scale such as physics and chemistry would fit our definition but so would those fields which study it in “part” such as biology whose field has been limited to only those life forms on Earth. Archeology attempts to describe and understand the fossil and archeological record (a part of the universe) and this understanding includes what its function, purpose, state of existence, etc. was. The archeological example previously given also shows how a hypothesis, theory, and fact can develop in the field of archeology...all without using the scientific method.

[freedumb2003]

See? I got confused because I was awaiting J2099’s answer to my prior question.

I do hope my provided definition of science is helpful. And Mr. J2099, I do await your answer.

I hope you, also, had a blessed Easter.

And to both of you, please do keep in mind that I have advanced no statements, belief or otherwise, on any theories nor belief systems. I have asked questions to clarify your earlier posts.

Your answers cheerfully awaited.

[Jaime2099]

"Likewise, I would hope that we agree in matters of science and science education policy should be determined by the scientific consensus. For quite some time a strong consensus among the people who study it, say the evidence points to the gradual development of man, not creation and that’s what the schools should teach."

There is simply not enough proof for Human Evolution in order to teach children in school that it is a fact. It is merely an educated guess at best. No one can legitimately exclude it as being part of religion because if it is true, it disproves the Bible and that is a very serious matter that involves religion. Hiding this does not make it go away. Human Evolution's teachings prove the Bible wrong and it is undeniable, and it's religious context is unavoidable.

It appears you believe science and religion are different and should be separated, but Human Evolution and religion cannot be separated. If it is chosen to be in science, then religion has been added to science. And, if religion has been added to science, then how can creationism be left out?

Human Evolution is "proof" that the Bible is inaccurate. Teaching it in science to children is the equivalent of telling them that the Bible is false. This is religion and science mixed together, yet creationists have no say. By adding Human Evolution to a science curriculum, the barrier of science and religion has already been breached. To add creationism to the curriculum as well will simply balance out the scales.

[Jaime2099]

I don’t know how to take that. As I said the RCC teaches it. So you just hate that teaching? Do you find it to be wrong? Immorral? How, therefore, do you reconcile your hatred of the content to those who teach it and embrace it? Is there no relationship at all?

You're fishing, nothing more. You say nothing of your own belief, nor do you refute what I say. You are simply trying to lay some childish trap. I've already answered your question, if you don't understand my answer, then you wouldn't understand yet another answer to the same question.

I am interested in your answer to valkyry1's post.

[Just mythoughts]

Well see these most fit got the supremes to rule they are most fit to survive off the children. Jesus did have a few things to say about those that sit in the seat of Moses.

So we really cannot be all that surprised how far ‘out’ on a limb some will go, as we are told there is nothing ‘new’ under the ‘sun’. And this ‘knowledge’ has been being preached since that snake whispered into the woman's ear....

[freedumb2003]

You're fishing, nothing more. You say nothing of your own belief, nor do you refute what I say. You are simply trying to lay some childish trap. I've already answered your question, if you don't understand my answer, then you wouldn't understand yet another answer to the same question.

You really have not answered my question. It was quite explicit and, I assure you, represents no "trap." Thanks in advance for answering.

[gondramB]

>>There is simply not enough proof for Human Evolution in order to teach children in school that it is a fact. It is merely an educated guess at best. No one can legitimately exclude it as being part of religion because if it is true, it disproves the Bible and that is a very serious matter that involves religion. Hiding this does not make it go away. Human Evolution’s teachings prove the Bible wrong and it is undeniable, and it’s religious context is unavoidable.<<

We know we disagree about whether evolution is the most likely explanation (since theories are never “proved” in science, unlike math).

The question I was addressing was whether we let the scientific community and the consensus therein determine how science is taught. I think science should determine science education.

Now when it comes to how to use science, I see an important role for ethics, and morals, which for me come from religion. But when we teach kids what the modern scientific theory on something is, we ought to tell them the truth.

And the truth is, whether one agrees or not, the scientific community is firmly convinced that men developed from simpler creatures.

[valkyry1]

Actually you have advanced several things. You ask questions, then supply your own answers about the person. Or you think you are clever by putting a question mark at the end of your assertion, or posing it as several questions.

[freedumb2003]

Actually you have advanced several things. You ask questions, then supply your own answers about the person. Or you think you are clever by putting a question mark at the end of your assertion, or posing it as several questions.

I can recap.

To you, I asked by what criteria is something like Evolution not science and other aspects OK science. You then asked for a definition of science, which I provided. The original question is still open.

To J0299, I asked the question to clarify if the RCC is not to be hated for their teaching then what is being hated? Is it the teacher? I am still not clear.

I hope this helps. I get lost thread swimming sometimes, too.

[valkyry1]

Starting with your words.

I could explain why I rejected belief in evolution - it came from studying science, particularly the evolutionary sciences.

[Jaime2099]

I asked the question to clarify if the RCC is not to be hated for their teaching then what is being hated? Is it the teacher? I am still not clear.

It is neither the Roman Catholic church, nor is it any teacher of Human Evolution. It is the theory of Human Evolution which I hate. That is your answer just as I posted before.

[Jaime2099]

"The question I was addressing was whether we let the scientific community and the consensus therein determine how science is taught. I think science should determine science education."

I understand completely. My point is that the scientific community has brought religion into the picture themselves, and if it is their desire to bring religion into science, then creationism must be present as an alternative. Human Evolution's presence in science is religious and has nothing to do with actual science at all.

"And the truth is, whether one agrees or not, the scientific community is firmly convinced that men developed from simpler creatures."

Their degrees in science give them no clout in matters of religion. Teaching physics, biology, and chemistry, are well within their expertise. Teaching Human Evolution is not in any way within their expertise. Many in the scientific community disagree with Human Evolution, some say so, others are too afraid, and rightfully so.

You see Human Evolution as a science and that is why you feel the way you feel. I see Human Evolution as a religion and that is why I feel the way I feel.

[gondramB]

>>Starting with your words.

I could explain why I rejected belief in evolution - it came from studying science, particularly the evolutionary sciences.
<<

And we are unlikely to convince each other but we should be able to agree in what areas we will rely on scientific consensus and what areas we will reserve for religion.

[freedumb2003]

>>
It is neither the Roman Catholic church, nor is it any teacher of Human Evolution. It is the theory of Human Evolution which I hate. That is your answer just as I posted before.

I am still a little confused, but OK. Your posts seemed to have so much antipathy, I was sure you hated proponents of Evolution.

Good to know I was wrong.

Hate is a bad enough thing that we get from the left — I certainly don’t like it from our side.

[Jaime2099]

"I am still a little confused, but OK. Your posts seemed to have so much antipathy, I was sure you hated proponents of Evolution."

I never said that or even hinted at it. You came up with that one on your own. Hate is simply a keyword that makes people think the person who used the word is automatically in the wrong.

I answered your question, now will you answer how Human Evolution and the Bible are compatible? God created Adam and animal separately according to the Bible. Both cannot be correct, one is wrong, which is it?

[alstewartfan]

“Why did God make us look like apes rather than, say, dogs or horses?”

Because God anticipated that it would be ridiculous for Mr. Rogers to have asked repeatedly, “Won’t you be my *neigh......bor.” Bob

[freedumb2003]

>>God created Adam and animal separately according to the Bible. Both cannot be correct, one is wrong, which is it?

You are begging the question and providing a false dichotomy. Both are, indeed, right. Evolution is the method by which God created Man. We have billions of evidential points that tell us so. This is not a question of inventing a theology — it is following the facts where they lead.

Why does this disturb you so? God is very powerful — He can certainly use any mechanism He wishes. He chose to provide us with a wonderful Universe full of vast mysteries, but all which operate on consistent rules to be discovered by His Children.

Well, back onto the plane for me. We are going to be flying over that mess in the south — wish me luck!

[Jaime2099]

Evolution is the method by which God created Man. We have billions of evidential points that tell us so. This is not a question of inventing a theology — it is following the facts where they lead.

If you feel that way, then you contradict the Word of God in Genesis. If you are an atheist or believe in a different God, then I understand. If you are a Christian, then I do not understand.

If these are facts as you say, then you received them from something other than the Bible. The Bible says that God formed man from the dust of the ground and gave him life through His own breath and not from evolving man from an animal. Call Human Evolutionists false or call the Bible a lie. Make your choice, the two are not, and never will be, compatible.