It is
increasingly really hard to take what passes for science in our modern world
seriously. Of course, people respond to such a statement by saying stuff like, “but
science gives us our technology, our phones, our air-conditioning, our
transports and so many other things?” No, engineering does, much of what is
called science today has not yet graduated to the level of engineering and
never will. Modern science is largely a thing of myths and legends and true and
genuine nonsense[1].
Here is a
good example, look at this title:
“Europe
was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find”[2]
Then we read
these grand statements made by the researchers in the article,
“But two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like
teeth have been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago…
…The discovery of the creature, named Graecopithecus
freybergi, and nicknameded ‘El Graeco' by scientists, proves our ancestors were
already starting to evolve in Europe 200,000 years before the earliest African
hominid.
An international team of researchers say the findings
entirely change the beginning of human history and place the last common
ancestor of both chimpanzees and humans - the so-called Missing Link - in the
Mediterranean region.
At that time climate change had turned Eastern Europe into an
open savannah which forced apes to find new food sources, sparking a shift
towards bipedalism, the researchers believe.”[3]
Then we find
out what they actually found,
“The team analysed the two known specimens of Graecopithecus
freybergi: a lower jaw from Greece and an upper premolar tooth from Bulgaria.”[4]
This is
ridiculous. Bones from an unspecified creature are being claimed to upturn
everything we know about human evolution?
Out of
Africa theory is just as ridiculous, so my point is not to seek to assert that
the older theory is better. But the idea that two disconnected bone fragments
can be used to build any picture of the ancient past of humanity is beyond
ridiculous, yet in our modern world this counts for “science”. Firstly, the
scientific method requires observation, hypothesis, experimentation, evaluation
and that the experiment can be repeated by someone else using the same
parameters. That is real science, that is how engineering has been developed across the history of
mankind. Secondly, the kinds of stories people tell from these bones, from the
most basic information is ludicrous.
For example,
“Probably El Graeco's face will resemble a great ape, with shorter
canines."[5]
There is absolutely no way to know this or hypothesize this. But certain
assumptions about the nature of pre-history have been accepted by the
scientific communities and they just run with it.
This is true
of many of the reconstructions of Neanderthal displays you seen in natural
history museums, or of dinosaur reconstructions, or any number of other such displays.
They are theoretical reconstructions of what archaeologists and palaeontologists
think such people and creatures looked like and lived like. It is a fantasy dressed
up as science. It is a façade.
I remember
being a young pastor and being a bit trepidatious about challenging evolution.
I still taught 6 day creation and a young earth (though with no exact time
frame, as the Bible does not give one exactly), but I remember seeking to treat
the evolutionary model with respect, and some manner of deference, because it is
held so strongly by so many. But over the years I have moved away from that
approach completely. Ministries like Answers in Genesis and the Intelligent Design
outfits have been helpful. But even more so, just reading what the evolutionary
scientists say themselves breeds confidence that they are blind and stumbling
around in the dark, all at the same time.
So much of
the “scientific” description of pre-history is like reading a cross between
ancient pagan origin stories of creation (filled with blood, death and chaos)
mixed with fantasy world building. This is not science.
This
scientistry is what passes for science in today’s world. But it is really myth
building, based on assumptions, using scant evidence that does not reveal its
secrets to us very much, if at all, and creating theories based on a big house
of cards that cannot really bring any benefit to the daily lives of humanity.
The scientific method when properly applied can advance humanity and help us do incredible things. But very few things the scientific community do today graduate to
that level of respectability. The emperor is naked, he is without clothes. The
history or pre-history of humanity does not hinge on an enigmatic tooth. Myths dressed as explanatory theories may, but our origins do not.
If you read
the most ancient histories of the world they all point to humanity emanating
out from the general region of the Caucasus mountains in multiple directions.
But even these histories are incomplete and leave us with a lot of mystery. Still,
this history corresponds with exactly where we should find the earliest traces
of humanity, because this is where Noah and his family landed after the flood.
That non-human creatures are then used to seek to debunk this written and
studied history, should help us understand what is behind a lot of this
nonsense: there are spiritual elements in this world that want to point people
as far away from anything that vindicates the scriptures as they can. If a
tooth found in a cave or pit somewhere can be used to try and do this, then
they will do it. The fact that such a discovery is based on a very thin and
flimsy foundation that cannot actually advance the body of human knowledge is
just a bonus for those spiritual forces.
As a
Christian you need not fear such theories like the one presented in this
article, or other evolutionary speculations. Because when you read them you can
see how speculative they really are. Everyone knows that evolution actually happened
when they found the black rectangle, right? Everyone knows that…well, at least
that sounds more credible than some of the incredible things we are told are
the “actual science”. Maybe Kubrick more mocking than propagating a set of assumed
facts when he made that movie?
List of References
[1]
Especially theoretical fields like physics (which is a pseudo-metaphysics in
many ways) and evolutionary biology.
[2]
Sarah Knapton, 2017, Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa,
scientists find, https://archive.md/giiEj#selection-2961.0-2961.137
No comments:
Post a Comment