Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

American Museum of Natural History — Cruisin for a Bruisin


An Evolutionist’s Evolution

It may seem that the American Museum of Natural History is cruising for controversy in presenting “Darwin,” the most comprehensive exhibition any museum has offered on the naturalist’s life and theories. It is a time, after all, when the theory of evolution by natural selection seems as newsworthy as it was back in the days of the Scopes trial 80 years ago. . . .

The exhibition mentions intelligent design not as science, or as a theory to be debated, but as a form of creationism, which offers the biblical view that God created the earth and its creatures fully formed within the last 10,000 years. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that creationism is a religious belief that cannot be taught in public schools. . . .


bombadill- i didnt notice that link before. thanks. the big problem i have is that darwinists try to fit the fossils INTO the story thats already been written, and that theyre fanciful drawings (which are often found to be totally bogus) are done in a manner to back up the narrative. like the soft tissue and hair on an animal- bones cannot tell you that! in the pics, they make the neanderthal man with a giant nose and sloping forehead, yet the skull doesnt make either one of those a must. the nose area is nearly identical to that of the regular human skull. why a big nose then? because they want to CREATE the narrative that this is nearly man, but not totally. thats not science, thats science fiction. they get screwed constantly because they write these stories without much evidence to back them up- then when they find a new set of bones, they always try to put it into the 'human line' just so they can claim its a missing link. that, and they often have to change the entire line to fit this new fossil into the mix! thats not how you do science. thats how you do propaganda. jboze3131
attribution to a species is yes/no. if a fossils has 13 features, and 7 look llike animal A and the remainder look like animal B, it is called A. I think we would have to go back and look at the bones themselves I rememebr a series of pictures of hominid skulls and people were challenged to place them as human or other. If I recall rightly, not even devout creationists could agree which were fully human and which were 'other'... hold on..... I cant find it. Oh. The closest I can find is quoting http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html and it seems about right (the one I saw was a macromedia quiz). theSun
There should be billions of intermediates. Instead what you see, is, sudden appearance and stasis in nearly every geological column. Benjii
jboze, here's a compelling article I read over the weekend, that touches on some of the issues you raise: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/neander.html *please note that i know nothing about the author of this paper. He raised some excellent points, none the less. Bombadill
Of course, the blatant lie here of the Bible and 10, 000 yr old earth is reprehensible, but from studying the origins issue, I am not at all surprised. Another thing... THIS is why i have a problem with these narratives that arent really based on observed facts: "The show will offer an overview of human evolution through the rich fossil record." According to the History Channel's experts (darwinists interviewed for the prorgram) on their show From Ape to Man, they explained that the entire fossil record of "human evolution"- all the fossils could fit into the back of a small pickup truck. Now, if all the "hominid" fossils can fit into the back of a pickup, and many of these so-called ancestors are hotly debated, then I would hardly call that "the rich fossil record." 1. if it all fits into a pickup, it cannot, by definition, be considered "rich", and 2. half of the fossils in the pickup aren't even agreed upon by all scientists. The problem? Common ancestry should have made possible thousands (or at least hundreds!) or fossils showing human evolution, no? If they posit that millions of species A lived on earth and were ancestors to humans, why we do have but a handful of bones and not even full skeletons of some of these 'people'? I'm aware that things don't easily fossilize, but with millions of of a certain thing- you should get at least a dozen specimens, no? Is that too much to ask for. Not to mention- the fossils show very little in terms of external features...you can't compare DNA of these so-called ancestors, because there is no DNA. You can't tell what sort of hair they had, if they had hair at all, how much hair they had if they had it...you also can't realize any of the soft features- the pics you see of big flat noses on "primitive man" are nonsense and come solely from an artists imagination (which is used to push the mud to man theory via illustrations that fit the already conceived narrative of 'human evolution')- if you dig up the bones of Jimmy Durante, you'd have no idea he had a giant honker. One day, if scientists were to dig up the bones of Robin Williams (once he's passed, of course), you've no idea he was covered in thick fur! I had a friend in high school (a guy) who even during his senior year had no hair on his arms or legs. His bones would never tell that story. jboze3131

Leave a Reply