Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism, intelligent design, and popular culture: The 10,000 year talking point

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yeah, the show’s back in town. And with most of the original cast, too.

I mean the poll, recently reported by USA Today, that shows that 66% of Americans think that the statement, “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” is definitely or probably true.

This is wonderful poll question for people who believe that Uncle Sam’s alter ego is Santa Claus. I wonder how much public money Darwin lobbies in high science will screw out of US taxpayers in order to try to change their minds – with about as much success as they have had in the past – zilch.

As I pointed out in By Design or by Chance?, the human history that most people would recognize is certainly less than 10,000 years old. Ur of the Chaldees, the city Abraham left in order to wander in the desert, is about 6500 years old. The Great Pyramid is only about 4500 years old. Apart from wordless outliers like the Willendorf Venus and the Cave of Lascaux, we have only the empty speculations of “evolutionary psychology” for the vast stretches of time before then. So real history is relatively recent.

And that is a significant fact. Something happened to human beings relatively recently (less than ten thousand years ago) that did not happen to lemurs, toads, or ants. And it is a mark of the enormously heavy investment that the American materialist elite has made in materialism that it is at such pains to try to convince everyone else of its peculiar delusion that nothing really happened.

To see what is at stake here, consider the following three propositions:

1. Five million years ago, your ancestors were lemur-like creatures screaming in the trees.

2. You are about 60% water.

3. Your DNA is 98% identical to that of a chimpanzee.

All sensible humans who are not materialists will respond to any one of these propositions, “So?”

Now, any one of them may happen not to be true. For example, because I am a woman, I am more likely to be about 50% water (because fat binds less water than muscle does, and women store proportionately more fat).

But either way, half of me is the same stuff as Lake Ontario. But what does that mean? It means you can replicate that half by pouring yourself a glass of water. So that’s the half you don’t need to bother about.

Similarly, the fact that our ancestors may have screamed in the trees millions of years ago is actually of vastly less significance than the events of the last ten thousand years. Just as the similarities of our DNA with that of chimpanzees mainly tells you that most of what you need to know about a human being is not in the DNA.

The real reason that most Americans simply don’t go along with elite opinion about the origin of human beings is that they are relatively freer than other peoples to dissent from their elite, and they know – as any sensible person who thinks about the matter must know – that the materialist view of human beings is nonsense. And they rightly reject everything connected with it.

Something did happen less than ten thousand years ago that forever separated us from Lake Ontario and from whatever screams in the trees. And I think the solid 66% on the poll question are trying to say that, even though they are forced to fund the propagandists of the elite through their taxes.

Comments
Consolidation Loan... Debt services consolidation programs which offers essential consolidation....Consolidation Loan
March 25, 2008
March
03
Mar
25
25
2008
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Here is a list of domesticated animals and none of them are indigenous to Africa according to the article http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1499.htmjerry
June 14, 2007
June
06
Jun
14
14
2007
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Hi fbrideau I see your "The essential characteristics of science are . . ." followed by Judge Overton's definition, more or less. [NB: Judges are not usually experts in the History and Philosophy of science. Even Michael Ruse has backed away from the Overton attempted definition.] Perhaps you may find it interesting to empirically test them against the history of the origin of science as we know it,and the actual worldviews of a great many expert practitioners across time and today. GEK of TKIkairosfocus
June 14, 2007
June
06
Jun
14
14
2007
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT
karen Correlation is not the same as causation. People who have abnormally small brains can still be of above average intelligence and people with above average brain size can be imbeciles. The correlation between increasing brain size and increasing intellectual capacity thus appears to be not directly related. Neuronal organization is a different story but as far as I know no one has discovered a wiring diagram for the human brain in human DNA. If I had to speculate I'd say a serendipitous combination of other physical attributes had more to do with it - standing upright with opposable thumbs and a voicebox along with comparatively poor senses (sight, smell, hearing) and comparative lack of defenses such as fangs, claws, venom, flight, speed, strength, and concealment led to the reliance on intellect for competitive advantage. Humans, and primates in general, were not particularly successful species in prehistoric times with very limited ranges and small populations. Wolves and deer, for example, were much more successful until we employed intellect to make increasingly effective artificial weapons. DaveScot
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
African animals simply do not make good candidates for domestication. As opposed to Asian or European animals? The first domesticated animals were wild animals -- at least if you assume evolution. The first pet dog was a wolf. What's more ornery a warthog or a wild boar?tribune7
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
"Was this change just cultural or was it some extension of the intrinsic abilities of homo sapiens?" Markf, The change was genetic-- it involved not only changes in brain size, but also some significant "re-wiring." Once we were about to think symbolically, that opened the door to developing language, art, and unlimited culture. It allowed us to ponder the past, the future, and it enriched our social relationships. For instance, instead of just attacking a trouble maker or threatening him (as apes do), we could make, communicate, and enforce rules. How do we know there is a genetic base for this? Here's a link from the American Museum of Natural History. You might also enjoy the fascination episode called "The Mind's Big Bang" from the PBS series on Evolution.Karen
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Africa also had very few nutritious grains and no useful domesticable animals jmcd: I don't know about grains, but you are correct about the animals-- African animals simply do not make good candidates for domestication. Some of the factors that determine whether an animal can be domesticated include the ability to reproduce in captivity, and the general nature and sociability of the animal. When an animal is domesticated it changes genetically, as there is strong artificial selection for tameness. The horse will readily accept a human as its leader. The zebra, on the other hand, is vicious and is right behind the wild felines in killing zoo-keepers. Indian elephants are not domesticated, but are captured, tamed, and trained for work. It's not cost-efficient to breed and raise them. (The African elephant has a much more unruly temperament so it's just not worth it to try to tame them.) I also want to mention in passing that the human diseases that evolved from our domestic animal diseases were bad enough for us, but they were disastrous to people groups who had no previous exposure to them. For instance small pox devastated native American populations in this country. If you want to learn about the domestication of the dog, NOVA had a good show about this called "Dogs and More Dogs."Karen
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
I would like to throw my perspective into the evolution/creation debate. I have recently published a book called Intelligent Design of Personality. In Intelligent Design of Personality I make, I believe, a strong and definitive case that personality development is more a science then an art form. In particular, as referenced against the characteristics of science accepted in U.S. law from the 1982 court decision, McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education, my theory of personality development justifies itself on all accounts. The essential characteristics of science are: 1) It is guided by [physical or biological] law; 2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3) It is testable against the empirical world; 4) Its conclusions are tentative, are not necessarily the final word; and 5) It is falsifiable[or, more accurately, makes predictions that can be tested by observation], My new personality development theory, Intelligent Design of Personality, first of all, uses Natural Law, those “unchanging moral principles common to all human beings” Oxford Dictionary, 1998, as it’s foundation. In the second instance, I use many natural biological processes such as homeostasis, reflexes, imprinting and the Pleasure Selection Principle; that an organism has the tendency to repeat any activity firm which it derives pleasure, all governed by Natural Law, to explain how organized, orderly and explicit the biological processes are at arriving at their universal objective, the production of a moral human being. Thirdly, I reveal, with many examples, how testable, predictable and definitive the theory is against the real or empirical world. In the final analysis, it is readily accepted that the theory is tentative, i.e., that it will be improved upon in the future and that it is falsifiable not only by observation but would stand the scrutiny of the laboratory on all accounts. In essence, the proof of man's native morality is the real and present existence of Natural Law. I believe the proponents of both evolution and creation will find the text very informative, uplifting and restorative of faith in human nature and human dignity. The two sides, I submit are one continuous string, evolution does its thing slowly or quickly depending on the circumstances. In the meantime, the intelligent design of the natural personality,compliments of Mother Nature, force morality on every individual that has the opportunity to develop a naturalized personality. Naturalized personalities all speak the same language, i.e. the same realistic thoughts, integrated with the same realistic feelings, producing similar moral behaviour driven by Natural Law. In other words, an atheist has the same natural ability to be as moral as a religious person if raised in a natural family environment where basic human nature is allowed to thrive. In effect, the best traditions of positive religions, cultures and philosophies come from the warm embers of a naturalized human heart. You will be able to read more about my book at my website [www.intelligentdesignofpersonality.com] or soon on Google Book Partners. Frank Brideaufbrideau
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
The links for the previous post have a semi colon in them at the end. Delete it and the links will work. Looks like interesting reading.jerry
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
There has been an interesting discussion on the discovery of agriculture, on the last few postings on this thread. I thought readers might be interested in having a look at the following online articles by Rochelle Forrester: "The Discovery of Agriculture" at http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/The-Discovery-of-Agriculture.html; "A Theory of History" at http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/A-Theory-of-History.html; and "A Problem with Some Philosophies of History" at http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/rochelle.f/A-Problem-with-some-Philosophies-of-History.html. I think the articles may clear up some readers' queries. Hope this helps, Vincent Torleyvjtorley
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Jared Diamond and Thomas Sowell have both explained why Africa faced more hurdles for developing civilization than the other continents. Lack of domesticated grains, animals, navigable rivers, natural harbors, mountain ranges all suppressed development of this area compared to other areas of the world. The only real navigable river is the Nile and this is associated with early civilization but in north Africa. Most of the best harbors are also on the Mediterranean as well as access to the trade from the fertile crescent. Diamond's book is interesting but forget anything he tries to say about the world after 3,000 BC. That part is ideological nonsense.jerry
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
Africa also had very few nutritious grains Well there were rice and millet and sorghum Anyway, ice never reached the Indus Valley or the Tigris/Euphrates or the Yangtze area or the Mekong either. no useful domesticable animals Well, there were elephants, horses, dogs, pigs and cattle. The climate of Africa during the last glaciation was also much drier than it is today. In other words, there was more grassland and fewer forest.tribune7
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Africa also had very few nutritious grains rice and Millet and sorghum Anyway, ice never reached the Indus Valley or the Tigris/Euphrates or the Yangtze area or the Mekong either. no useful domesticable animals Like elephants, horses, dogs, pigs and cattle? The climate of Africa during the last glaciation was also much drier than it is today. In other words, there was more grassland and fewer forest.tribune7
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Africa also had very few nutritious grains and no useful domesticable animals (teo precursors of every early civilizations). The climate of Africa during the last glaciation was also much drier than it is today.jmcd
June 13, 2007
June
06
Jun
13
13
2007
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
The last ice age lasted for over 100,000 years with a middling period where glaciation swung back and forth but never receded completely that lasted for 30,000 years. The ice did not cover the whole world. Africa -- as in out of -- actually had very little glacial activity.tribune7
June 12, 2007
June
06
Jun
12
12
2007
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Dave An intelligent source that we are not aware of impacting our world would indeed seem like magic. I would never say that such an "artificial" (if you will) infusion of intelligent agency on Earth is or was impossible. I just do not see any problem of humanity getting from there to here given what we know and can reasonably surmise. I also do not have any problem with the "why then" question that jerry raised. The last ice age lasted for over 100,000 years with a middling period where glaciation swung back and forth but never receded completely that lasted for 30,000 years. The environmental prime time for the development of civilization for the past 100,000 years was approximately 10,000 years ago. Civilizations also did not spring up spontaneously. Monumental architecture took centuries to develop. Large scale ecological management such as wide ranging irrigation systems also developed in starts and fits sometimes involving catastrophes capable of bringing a civilization to its knees. What we know about pre historic and early historical civilizations meshes well with how we have seen civilization develop during more recent periods with better preserved histories.jmcd
June 12, 2007
June
06
Jun
12
12
2007
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Dee It struck me as highly improbable that a large empire like the Inca could be built and adminsitered without some form of record keeping. As an engineer it seems especially unlikely that their complex structures could be built without architectural drawings, arithmetic, and measuring systems. On googling I found a wealth of information about Inca methods of recording. They probably did have a written language and used knotted strings called khipu to impliment it. We just don't know how to read it and have very few artifacts to use in cracking it - only some 300 of these knotted strings are intact today.DaveScot
June 12, 2007
June
06
Jun
12
12
2007
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Sal "Something very major emereged about 10,000 years ago." Was this change just cultural or was it some extension of the intrinsic abilities of homo sapiens? (If it is just cultural then I don't think it has any significance for our view of the evolution of man). If it was an increase in our intrinsic abilities then: It happened to pretty much everyone at roughly the same time all over the globe. It appears to be hereditary (or maybe it gets added each time someone is conceived/born?)markf
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
“forbidden” archaeology
I have been pondering posting on Forbidden Archeology, especially since two of the major participants in the Mere Creation Confrence: 1. Phil Johnson 2. Sigrid Sherer like Cremo's work. Even though it deals with Vedic ID (versus the westernized form of ID which you read about all the time in the US), I think it's a worthy topic to bring up in discussion. We'll see if I get around to posting on Vedic ID and Forbidden Archaeology. Salscordova
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
The Incas were a highly advanced ancient civilization, achieving great feats of building in areas where modern construction equipment cannot reach and in altitudes far above which crops can be grown by any known means in order to feed the huge populations of labourers needed to build these monuments and cities. The Inca empire was the largest pre-Colombian empire in the new world (close to two million square kilometers at its greatest extent, larger than Alaska), and lasted for close to five centuries. They managed all this despite not having a written language. By all means I wouldn't consider them to be "worldless outliers," but instead an advanced, cosmopolitan society. Absence of a written language is not an indication of primitiveness or lack of a shared cultural identity (a "world"). All it indicates is that a people has managed to discover a means of survival without the utilization of writing. It is a profoundly anthropocentric and ethnocentric view to associate writing with advanced cultural identity. It is even possible to suggest that at some time in the future our own society will do away with writing in favour of a better means of communication, whatever that may be (this is not the appropriate place to discuss alternatives to writing). I happen to agree that something happened to set humans apart from other animals in antiquity (and have maintained an estimate of 72,000 years as that date, coinciding with the Toba eruption, though the eruption itself is not the cause nor does it have effect on the cause and the date is merely an opinion and has no bearing in fact; the actual event could have happened at any later, though not earlier, time I maintain the earliest likely candidate for sake of convenience, not because I'm in to catastrophism or anything; I have my theories as to what that event was, after reviewing the "forbidden" archaeology that is still pretty much being ignored or laughed at by mainstream society, but this is not the place to be going on at any great length on topics such as this for the convenience of readers who don't want to read comments that are more like whole books than entries on a message board), though I would point to events other than writing as the most important indication that this change occurred. More likely I would choose the usage of art or burial of the dead as indication of this change as it signifies the capacity for abstract thought and acceptance of modes of existence other than physical matter. Human beings are unique in these two practices; written language is just a different flavour of our unique position. -DeeUrbanMysticDee
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
Steven Goldman, who lectures for the Teaching Company on science, made the point in his lecture on human evolution that something mysterious happened to mankind about 10,000 years ago. Homo sapiens appeared about 175,000 years ago and about 65,000 years ago replaced homo erectus in Asia and about 40,000 years ago replaced Neanderthals in Europe. How or why is only speculation. For the first 150,000 years or more not much happened with homo sapiens. There were some tools, art, elaborate rituals and while there was some progress in each, not much really changed. Then about 10,000 years ago human culture exploded. Within a short time (9,000 years ago) there was civilization with walled cities and trading. It was like it came out of nowhere. It was about the end of an ice age when this started but there were previous ice ages that ended and nothing like this happened. So the big mystery is what triggered it at this time. What happened 10,000 years ago that sent human culture skyrocketing after 150,000 plus years of little or no change. By this time homo sapiens was widely dispersed with the two major migrations to the Western Hemisphere already finished. I have read Jared Diamond's book and his thesis about grains and domesticated animals in the Fertile Crescent is appealing but why not before. Goldman is no friend of ID but his statement was rather startling when I first heard it. He is a massive font of knowledge on the history of science and has three separate courses on science with the Teaching Company. If you want to learn what science has discovered in the last 500 years, he is a good place to start.jerry
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
great_ape said:
There have untold numbers of extinctions, horribly debilitating mutations, etc. And please, don’t tell me these things aren’t really mishaps because they are all ultimately toward some grand yet undetermined purpose.
But isn't this exactly what Darwinian evolution claims? Reproduction, random mutations, death, all necessary to refine and perfect a species, all working toward a grand, yet undetermined goal. Even if we consider our current "form" ideal, the trial and error that evolution has had to take would presumably wreak untold havoc on species and their offspring, requiring the weaker and inferior ones to give up the ghost to make room for the more fit. And if we're not the ideal product of evolution, we are only a step along the way, and all that matters is that we reproduce and clear out, so that RM+NS can perform its craft. Whether a mutation were horribly debilitating would not be subject to our moral judgment, a mere equal product of the process, but only subject to the judgment of natural selection. Beneficial mutation: you win. Harmful mutation: you lose, out of the way with you. And we'll let reproductive success be the true moral judge. The same would apply with extinction. Only from the standpoint of objective good and evil can we place any value on the individual, and so label the product of our so-called evolutionary development as horrible. Otherwise we're all just a rung on the ladder to a grand evolutionary goal. It takes a lot of trials to produce beneficial mutations among the harmful ones, as far as I can tell, so get busy mutating, all of you, and get to reproducing. Your mutated offspring are lottery winners or losers, each fulfilling their special purpose: to either win and pass along the genes, or to lose and absorb the statistical difference in service to the winner. Perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture? Is there more to evolution's purpose, and are its methods morally questionable, or beyond reproach?Apollos
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
"I linked to an article stating that our populace is less ignorant of science than the other industrial nations from which we are recruiting." --angryoldfatman Actually, you linked to an article saying our populace is generally less ignorant that the populace of Europe and Japan. Most of the scientists we import, if I'm not mistaken, are from India, China, and Korea. I do however concede the point, mentioned by others above, that economic forces play just as much a role ore more in the low numbers of scientists we produce.great_ape
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
"I am a highly intelligent, well read math/scientist who finds the concept of a billion year system running with no mishaps, and no designer, incredible." --mmadigan I'd like to know in what sense you think that it's all run a billion years (more like 3 billion) without mishaps? There have untold numbers of extinctions, horribly debilitating mutations, etc. And please, don't tell me these things aren't really mishaps because they are all ultimately toward some grand yet undetermined purpose. That may well be the case. But such a line of argument would indicate that you somehow find it "incredible" that all this has occurred without mishap even though, when the fine print is read, you believe that nothing that happens could constitute a mishap.great_ape
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
There is no good reason to insist or even imply there was something magical that happened less than ten thousand years ago. There is every reason to think that something very unprecedentedly significant happened less than 10,000 years ago.tribune7
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
Apollos wrote: Perhaps better eduction would change the minds of Paul Nelson, Salvador Cordova, and Marcus Ross?
I was a Darwinist until I leanred more of the facts (senior year high school). More education in science, math, etc. only made it more evident Darwinism was false. An anti-IDist (but IDist at heart), Harold Morowitz (of McLean vs. Arkansas fame) wrote:
The rate of change has sped up from the earliest hominids onto the cultural domain. Throughout the Holocene, the changes have been anthropogenic, caused by Homo Sapiens. Something very major emereged about 10,000 years ago. Emergence of Everything p. 166
scordova
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
I am a highly intelligent, well read math/scientist who finds the concept of a billion year system running with no mishaps, and no designer, incredible.mmadigan
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
jmcd Intelligence and magic seem to be the same thing in your thinking. You seem to be intelligent. Do you pull rabbits out of your hat and things of that nature?DaveScot
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
great_ape, Your original position was that our populace was ignorant of basic science knowledge, presumably due to obstruction by religious teachings. To support your position, you stated that U.S. colleges and universities need to recruit brainpower from overseas because of the supposed deficit in brainpower here. I linked to an article stating that our populace is less ignorant of science than the other industrial nations from which we are recruiting. How can a populace that is more ignorant of science than we are provide students with "more adequate training" in science than we do? That is a contadiction, which is why we've swerved away from the "religionists are killing science" meme in this thread. This meme being debunked means of course that no drastic measures of the type usually associated with the meme need to be taken.angryoldfatman
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
great_ape, I do not know how this applies to biology but my son in law has a Ph.D. in physics, speciality acoustics, and essentially could not find a job using this degree except for some interesting (help designing a concert hall) that paid only $20k a year. He eventually went to work in the design of toys that talked and doubled his salary and now works primarily as a computer coder for radio systems and makes a very good salary. My point is that he did not need his doctorate degree to do what he is doing now and many smart people know the salaries paid scientists don't match what can be made in other fields and why bother going through the process of getting the degree and training in something that does not pay well. I know another Ph.D in science who went into marketing and makes almost twice the salaries of the scientists who develop the products he works on. Science doesn't pay that well in this country nor does it have the prestige on its own that would lead people to it, but it is attractive to smart people in other countries that do not have access to the higher paying jobs in the US and in their cultures, doctorates in science are at the high end of the spectrum in terms of respect. Most smart people in the US would rather be Bill Gates than a nobel prize winner.jerry
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply