Thursday, September 25, 2008

Evolutionists Are Making it Look Bad for the Real Scientists

In the article End of the Neanderthal Myth it is pointed out that after decades of indoctrinating school kids into thinking Neanderthals were less evolved ancestors of humans, the experts have been forced by the evidence to admit that Neanderthals were just as human as we are today. The article then goes on to say:
Let this fact melt into the folds of your cerebrum: the Darwinians were wrong again for 150 years! – just like they have been wrong about the origin of life, the fossil record, and the genetic code. What major discovery did not hit them like a complete surprise? (the DNA code, the complexity of the cell, Mendel’s laws, the Cambrian explosion, living fossils, “convergent evolution” everywhere, to name a few examples). What prediction did they make that has not been falsified? (e.g., molecular phylogeny, ease of self-assembly of molecules into a cell, unlimited genetic variation, evolution of the horse, life on Mars, and much more – read the back issues). Their scientific theory is all vaporware and futureware. Their scientific method is just-so storytelling (02/22/2008). Their list of scientific accomplishments is a list of failures and deflated hype – a growing midden of discarded ideas, piling up and stinking to high heaven. Their scientific legacy is a ghastly record of intolerance, arrogance, destructive doctrines and crimes against humanity. How can real scientists stand being associated with these incorrigible miscreants? (miscreant, n., adj.: depraved, behaving badly, scoundrel, reprobate.) What have they done for you lately, you true scientists out there? They are destroying your good reputation.

Take Darwin and evolution and the Victorian myth of progress out of the 19th century, and what might have happened? Creationists would have looked at the robust skeletons dug up from the field of Christian hymnwriter Joachim Neander (see 10/26/2001), and interpreted them as fully human without a blink. Creationist historians would have fit them into Biblical history after Babel, looking into the Table of Nations for clues. Creationist geneticists would have recognized the propensity for exaggeration of features with inbreeding of family groups. Creationist anatomists (like Jack Cuozzo) would theorize that the skeletons represented long-lived humans, just like the Bible said existed around the time of the Flood. Creationist geologists would have not been misled by myths about humans evolving from apes over millions of years, and so would have felt no pressure to fit these humans into a long, stretched-out timeline. Creationist anthropologists would not have called it “startling” to find them using the same hunting and subsistence strategies as other tribes at Gibraltar. Who would have been more correct? Who would have felt more comfortable with the evidence? The fate of the evolutionist is to be constantly startled by facts that don’t fit their plot line.

No comments: