Skip to content

Homo argumentensis

September 22, 2006

I was an anthropology major in college, and I have had to repent a lot of thinking from that era. A lot of arguing goes on in the social sciences because of the misconception that one can argue for truth, when in fact, truth is not the objective among these people at all. Anthropologists, in particular, find the most incredibly stupid minutia over which to argue.

The skeleton of a new “proto-hominid,” as they say in the anthro biz, is in the process of being extricated from a sandstone matrix. The bones belonged to a small female creature scientists (I use the term merely to denote a job) say lived 3.3 million years ago. Scientists believe she lived 100,000 years before “Lucy,” a fellow australopithecine (“southern ape”). Did she die in a flood? Was it the flood? Did she walk, did she talk, did she play with her toes? Her cerebral capacity would not have inclined her to high math, however long she might have lived, and she’d have needed extra-long sleeves. The arguments have only just begun. One scientist on the case, describing the arguments at hand about the creature’s mode of ambulation and whether or not she could climb, said it “makes the Middle East look like a picnic.” (Old Bones A ‘Once In A Lifetime’ Find, 3.3 Million-Year-Old Skeleton Fuels Debate On Species Scientists View As Human Ancestor, CBS News online, Sept. 20, 2006).

Another day, another ape, and there are still apes today. Evidently they didn’t all have the same good fortune to evolve into smart people like us and go on to develop experimental models to sell to government granting agencies.

The model of linear evolution is not only unbiblical, but internally inconsistent, because not all apes became manually dexterous bipeds. The model that relies on different species developing along different branches, or evolutionary lines, logically fails to account adequately for continual coexistence. And the math just doesn’t work, because “enough” just isn’t a temporal quantity. “Enough time” is what I don’t have when I’m trying to get ready to go out in the morning and the Cat throws up–how could there be “enough time” for the latest candidate for Missing Link of the Year to leave the treetops for a split level with a dishwasher?

The real problem with all evolutionary theories of apes and man is one of image. Man was created in the image of God; apes were not. Man’s image cannot evolve, because his image is the image of God, and God is “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (Ja 1:17). Apes were made to be apes; man was made in the image of God and given dominion over the rest of creation. Ge 2:15, 19-20; 3:20.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God come in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown Ge 6:4. We do not know exactly what these “giants” were that God determined to destroy in the flood; nor do we know exactly what the children of the “sons of God” were like. We know only that God judged them with destruction. Only Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives were saved, and the animals God directed to the ark for salvation from judgment: clean and unclean, by twos and threes–pairs for breeding and one additional animal of each clean species for sacrifice; for, there would be sacrifices made for their deliverance.

God reveals himself sufficiently to be understood by his people. Science qua science proffers models and deconstructs and reconstructs them when the data can no longer be fudged to fit–like the latest in nova size and the conflicting modeled age of the universe. Scientists acknowledge “a” flood but scoff at the Ark and Noah’s obedience to God and the sinfulness that brought about the Flood. I believe in the Ark and the Flood. I don’t see that scientists have a coach to take their show on the road. They have dry bones; I have the living Word of God and its promise of resurrection in glory. I do not expect to see Lucy or her ancestor in glory …nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed… 2 Tim 1:12.

Oh, and if you get a chance, read R. C. Sproul’s Not A Chance.

5 comments:

Victorbravo said…
I might recommend Dabney too. His Sensualistic Philosophy has a good section on evolution that raises your arguments. Striking when one realizes that Dabney was onto the flaws of Darwin’s views almost the instant Origin of the Species came out.It’s funny how the anthropos throw in such precision. “Approximately” 3.3 million years old contrasted with 100,000 years difference between Lucy and the diminuitive wonder girl.Also, it’s funny how the “scientific press” invokes fantasy in attempts to propogate a modern mythology:”If the fossil Lucy, the most famous woman from out of the deep human past, had a child, its skeleton might have looked a lot like the bundle of skull and bones uncovered by scientists digging in the badlands of Ethiopia.” (International Herald Tribune story).So they want us to think that a speculative daughter is 100,000 years older than her mother. How that helps us be rigoursly rational is hard to see, unless the next target for deconstruction is time itself.

8:56 AM  
Mrs. B said…
They’re working on deconstructing time of course. This guarantees full employment of scientists for all time. Astronomical models are pressing on it to fit their conjectures of the age of the universe, despite all wavelengths to the contrary. T.S. Eliot presaged this: “to roll the universe into a ball, to ask some overwhelming question…” The ultimate question, though, is what the bus people ask us all the time: “What time is it?”Time paradoxes, like killing your grandfather, abound in science fiction. Science and science fiction are indistinguishable.Confounding all is the reliance on the science of chemistry to determine time–radioactive carbon dating &c.But, regardless of where they want to place it in history, “the Flood” persists even in primal reprobate memory.
9:10 AM  
Ruben said…
Lauren as I understand it there is too the difficulty that evolution is a process of adding information on the cellular level, while what actually happens in natural selection is that cellular information is lost? That would militate against the whole process, which they want to say has been ‘observed’ in natural selection.
10:07 AM  
heidi said…
(oops. That was me.)
10:48 AM  
Mrs. B said…
I think that’s it–we are supposedly “streamlining toward greater complexity.”
11:33 AM  
Advertisements

Comments are closed.