Intelligent Design

When the Smithsonian does human origins… it becomes a “path to whiteness”

Spread the love

We are told, “the Hall of Human Origins continues the dark tradition of Darwinian views about humanity”:

Entering the Hall of Human Origins, the viewer is greeted by a panorama of species becoming more “white” as they evolve. One exception is the Hobbit of Indonesia (Homo floresiensis) which is portrayed as exceptionally dark. This selective focus ignores the many blunders and hoaxes of paleoanthropology (Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ida) and the less credible fossils (Ardipithecus, Orrorin). Nor does the exhibit mention the continual changes of opinion about early man that appear frequently in the media (e.g., New Scientist, Phys.org). Instead, visitors are treated to a single line of descent mimicking the discredited “march of man” icon that keeps popping up in cartoons. Real paleontologists admit a reticulate pattern where it’s not at all clear who is ancestral to whom. This complexity is ignored.

Inside the Hall of Human Origins, these same six specimens are portrayed on a path to whiteness. Visitors seem to accept this portrayal without rioting because, after all, this is “science.” Note that skin colors, hair, and nose shapes are not preserved with bones.

News, “Evolution Theater: Smithsonian Whitewashes Human Origins” at Evolution News and Science Today (November 24, 2021)

Some of us wondered when someone would get around to noticing the gradual Darwinian bleaching during the Ascent of Man… Because, with fossils, the complexion stuff is all imaginary anyway, it should be comparatively easy to fix.

But here’s another ball dropped that might not be so easy to fix:

The poster about language fails to engage the serious philosophical problem of abstract reasoning that makes humans exceptional. That question is deflected by asking, “When Did Humans Start Talking?” as if the evolutionary emergence of language can just be assumed. “Scientists are not sure,” the caption reads, then speculates that complex behaviors “probably required language” — another instance of the fallacy that needs cause design. If that were true, crows should have been writing operas and lions books on philosophy long before now. They had much more time to grow bigger brains and face challenges than humans allegedly did. Or does Darwinism only work its magic on humans and not on other species?

News, “Evolution Theater: Smithsonian Whitewashes Human Origins” at Evolution News and Science Today (November 24, 2021)

Many in science would far rather believe that consciousness is just an illusion to be explained way, even if the results are bizarre. Questioning naturalism is a grave offence there. The problem can’t be resolved just by cosmetic work on the fossils.

Great photos at the link.

You may also wish to read: A picture gallery of a visit to the Smithsonian makes clear: All Darwin all the time. This is hagiography, to be sure. But do the hagiographers know what time it is? Even now, Darwin’s bulldog Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–1895) is threatened with Cancellation.

12 Replies to “When the Smithsonian does human origins… it becomes a “path to whiteness”

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    The conventional picture puts language late in evolution, and writing much later. The brain disagrees. Speaking and hearing and READING AND WRITING all have hard-wired modules in the brain. The details of our symbol systems constantly change, but our NEED AND CAPACITY for speaking and writing have always been there.

  2. 2
    Joe Schooner says:

    The presented human lineage definitely has a Eurocentric bias to it. That could do with some updating.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Human beings are exceptional compared with other animals on this planet in terms of our use of language, abstract thought, reasoning.

    We are also exceptional in the numbers of our own killed during our many wars or our exploitation of the natural resources of this planet with little or no regard for the environmental consequences or the establishment of economic and political systems which enable the few with skills to “game” those systems to grab for themselves vast and disproportionate amounts of wealth and power.

    “Exceptional” does not necessarily mean better in any moral sense.

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Joe Schooner/2

    The presented human lineage definitely has a Eurocentric bias to it. That could do with some updating.

    It doesn’t look that way to me but I’m no expert. Would it be improved by an Afro-centric or Indo-centric bias?

    What I would hope is that the experts in those fields have done their best to represent the appearance of these distant ancestors based on the limited data we have about them. Perhaps the display could do more to emphasize that these are just our best inferences and could well be wide of the mark which is the best science do but none can do better.

  5. 5
    zweston says:

    Seversky, why is war bad if you are highly evolved pond scum? Says who?

  6. 6
    polistra says:

    Color is only one element of a larger consistent progression. Human evolution is expected to “progress” from peasant to aristocrat. The “primitive” versions have strong features, strong colors, loud voices, and strong bodies. The “advanced” versions are featureless, smooth, pale, and motionless. The final goal is disembodied software or spirits.

    This progression does actually happen in humans and technology and language. The first version is complex and rich in features. The later versions, after merging and globalizing, are pale and flat and featureless.

    The trouble with the standard view is that it reverses Nature’s intention. Nature wants complexity because complexity is ADAPTABLE. The dumbed-down final version, supposedly the superlative perfect result, is only functional in a luxurious delicate environment.

  7. 7
    AaronS1978 says:

    Hey if Pedophilia, rape, and psychopathy are just evolved behaviors and people are victims of their genes (thanks Darwin you insightful) then war is just survival of the fittest speed up

  8. 8
    AnimatedDust says:

    Seversky lectures us on morality, from his position, firmly ensconced in mid-air.

  9. 9
    EDTA says:

    Sev,
    >“Exceptional” does not necessarily mean better in any moral sense.

    No, because from a non-theistic starting point, there is no such thing as good or bad, and there’s no basis from which to judge people’s actions. People are just doing what comes naturally.

  10. 10
    News says:

    Some of us can’t help wondering why the Smithsonian didn’t see this coming.

  11. 11
    Belfast says:

    Seversky and the Smithsonian have to be understood as unflinching Darwinistas.
    This explains Seversky’s rambling defence of the Smithsonian’s blunder, and his digressions into topics of war and morality.
    Darwin conceived that there is a hierarchy among humans and it is in the nature of hierarchies that there are degrees of merit. He held that white Europeans were further, in evolutionary terms, from apes than other ‘races,’ and other ‘races’ were therefore closer to apes.
    He made it clear that evolution had not finished for he explicitly stated that in some future period …civilised (white) races…will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the ‘savage’ races. He named the negro and the Australian aboriginal as among the first of the ‘savage races’ to disappear.
    They have certainly disappeared in Seversky’s and the Smithsonian’s account of evolution.

  12. 12
    ram says:

    Seversky: Human beings are exceptional compared with other animals on this planet in terms of our use of language, abstract thought, reasoning.

    An affirmation of the OP.

    We are also exceptional in the numbers of our own killed during our many wars or our exploitation of the natural resources of this planet with little or no regard for the environmental consequences or the establishment of economic and political systems which enable the few with skills to “game” those systems to grab for themselves vast and disproportionate amounts of wealth and power.

    Irrelevant to the OP.

    “Exceptional” does not necessarily mean better in any moral sense.

    True, but off topic. As C.S. Lewis said, (and I paraphrase), greater intellect can make one morally inclined to be a devil into a worse devil. Satan was an Archangel once.

    (Sidebar: it is interesting that Seversky, to his credit, argues as if objective morality is…. wait for it…. a real thing. Otherwise his concerns over murder and environmentalism and oligarchic capitalism would just be morally equivalent to his preference of ice cream flavors.)

    –Ram

Leave a Reply