When Will Science Make Up It’s Mind? Or, What Would Richard Say?


Even among evolutionists there is no consensus, but you’ll have to read it for yourself. They can’t figure out if the family tree is a tree or a shrub, if it is a slow drawn out process (Dawkins) or if it happened all at once (Gould, ‘punk-eek’). I don’t this this proves anything, I do think it shows how much the exalted scientists of the world don’t know. They are just as ignorant today as yesterday. Bone chips prove their case, and nothing more:


By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Wed Aug 8, 5:57 PM ET

WASHINGTON – Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.  

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man’s early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.

I’m not making any statements about it, I’m just posting it here for you consumption. It will probably turn out to be a hoax, so I won’t put any stock in it. It is what it is: Human wisdom again turned upside down and proved rather shallow.

Here’s more:

The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact, each having its own “ecological niche,” Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.

They get all this from looking at a piece of bone that they contend is millions of years old. Do you know often the weather man is right? And, of course, there is the standard ‘This doesn’t prove anything’ statement from some genius Rhodes Scholar at a prestigious university:

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.

“This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points,” Anton said. “This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn’t do. It’s a continous self-testing process.”

It’s always a refining. It’s always self-testing. It’s always a religion vs science issue. It’s always, ‘We are the educated ones and the religious people are fools. So believe us not them.’ It’s still evangelism. These morons cannot be content with finding and believing what they find and believe. Their wisdom is defunct. I could give a scientist a square inch of cauliflower and they could find a way to make it prove that we evolved from vegetables. And yet continually confronted with their own evidence, they still refuse to believe.

Absolute Genius. And to think that we entrust the education of children to the hands of people like this. Baffling, I tell you, baffling.


The Beginning of Wisdom is the fear of God.


  1. “…it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory”

    Like there aren’t already enough flaws in it to poke punch holes?

  2. Sorry for the two in a row, but…

    “And to think that we entrust the education of children to the hands of people like this. Baffling, I tell you, baffling.”

    Junk like this is one of the main reasons we chose to home-school.

  3. Oh, you misunderstood me. I’m not predicting the demise of evolution. No, I’m commenting, rather, on the predictable responses from the eggheads, not unlike yourself, who tell us this is an issue of science being able to correct itself when religion won’t. Or that this is an issue of the demise of religion. (Frankly, religion should demise for reasons I have stated elsewhere on this blog. I’d start with the religion of evolution.)

    For the record, I’m all for evolution–as soon as it can be proven–which it can’t be, won’t be, and hasn’t been. So as yet, it is nothing more than a theory that must be continually corrected, and, what were the words used, ‘continually self-tested.’ I self test my faith in Christ every day that I wake up and put my feet on the floor. “In him all things hold together.” That is my test: that He won’t let go.


    PS–the evolutionists can’t even get it straight. Who’s right: Gould or Dawkins?

  4. Why do you have a problem with science being continually self-tested?

    I don’t get it…you and the Godefroi seem so smug…what happened?

  5. Brian,

    Thanks for stopping by and visiting. I don’t have a problem with science being ‘continually self-tested’. I have a problem with scientists asserting that their theories are fact when, in fact, they are not.

    Furthermore, I have an issue with scientists and atheists who criticize Christian faith as being non-intelligent fairy tales.

    PS-good luck with that geology degree. One of the members of my congregation has a Master’s degree in geology and taught it for a number of years at a high school. One time, when he and I were going sailing, I found a fossil on the beach that belonged to the late-devonian period of geological history. It’s now in the Cleveland Natural History Museum. My claim to fame.

    I don’t know Godefroi, so I can’t speak about his or her smugness. What happened, is that one day a scientist or two stood up and said that Christians are not as smart as scientists because we have just as much faith in creation as they do in evolution–neither of which can be substantially ‘proved.’ That’s all. I don’t think you read my original post which had something to do with noting the typical responses of the scientific community to these new fossil discoveries and the conclusions drawn from the discoveries. That’s all.


  6. Weeblog,

    Thanks for the comment. However you didn’t read what I wrote very well. I never said ‘I was right all along.’ Nor did I ever say ‘case closed.’ In fact, once again I point this out, I said, ‘I don’t think this proves anything except that science doesn’t know that much.’ (Or scientists.) You didn’t read very well if all you got out of my post was ‘case closed.’ Nice try though.


  7. “I have a problem with scientists asserting that their theories are fact when, in fact, they are not.”

    All scientific theories? Which theories and which scientists?

    “I have an issue with scientists and atheists who criticize Christian faith as being non-intelligent fairy tales.”

    Well, don’t you think those who are most vocal in that regard are responding to those who reject science out-of-hand as a non-intelligent fairy tale? What if a scientist criticizes the ancient Greeks polytheistic beliefs? Or Native Americans’ beliefs?

    I find it confusing that many creationists will spend so much time discussing the nuances of articles like this, when if you dig a little deeper they don’t even think radiometric dating is valid in the first place! If that’s the case, then the determination of the age of these ‘mere fragments’ is moot, no? Why even bother?

    But, i suppose if you think the fossil you found on the beach is indeed ~350 million years old, then you don’t fall into the anti-radiometric dating crowd?

    It’s all very confusing on which group believes or non-believes what.

  8. That’s the best you have? Go ahead, keep on believing…


    And you don’t like the president either? Wow, indeed you are powerful, as the emporer has forseen!

  9. re #11: are you replying to my comment or archiearchive?

    if me, i don’t get it…if not, can you respond to my confusion….I really am confused!

  10. It is all this post is worth – Illogical, poorly written and lying!

    I’m not making any statements about it, I’m just posting it here for you consumption. It will probably turn out to be a hoax, so I won’t put any stock in it. It is what it is: Human wisdom again turned upside down and proved rather shallow.”

    A pretty dood attempt at “not commenting”!

  11. How can I be lying if I am merely posting an article for people to read? I didn’t write the article. I merely linked to it. What the hell is illogical about that? As to your comments about my writing: I’m not writing for your approval or disapproval. Furthermore, if I choose to comment about an item, what do you care? It’s my blog and I can bloody well do and say as I please.

    You wrote, “A pretty dood attempt at ‘not commenting.'” And you are commenting on my writing?!? Please.

    Again, is that the best you’ve got?


  12. Brian,

    I was responding to that post by archie. I’m not sure what he’s complaining about. I’ll try to respond to your comment tomorrow. Right now I’m trying to get my itunes working. I’m having a little trouble and there are no scientists in my house to solve the problem. (Just a little humor, don’t get all worried about it.)

    Thanks for your patience,

  13. I thought that Yahoo News article might spin a debate or two.

    And here’s a geological perspective:

    How evolution works.

  14. dangoldfinch – an egghead like me? I’m smug?

    Wow – I guess I need to take more time to explain where I’m coming from in future writings if I can be dismissed so readily. If you or BrianR are interested, a few of the major flaws I referred to will be listed below. My home-schooling statement concerns articles like this, and the typical school science program, which promote the theory as proven fact (which would mean it’s no longer a theory).

    Ærchie – thanks for the note on my page…I assumed you found me from here. As for any delusions, once you or anyone else can satisfactorily overcome Evolution’s problems of oxidation, hydrolysis, all left-handed proteins, not a single demonstrable occurrence of macroevolution anywhere in science, then perhaps I’ll agree with you…until then, you are the one who’s deluded, and I’ll agree with dangoldfinch’s assessment that evolutionary theory as related to the origins of humanity hasn’t been, and won’t be, proven.

    “The Beginning of Wisdom is the fear of God”



  15. It’s quite simple really.

    A minor mutation happens, mostly for the bad, occasionally for the good of an individual…not species.

    This individual, who’s offspring survive better or are more attractive to the ladies etc. in turn pass this to their kids and so on. Put this into the countless generations that have happened then yes, evolution happens.

    Clear physical artifacts show this. Physiology that could have been designed better is there because it has to work on what came before it.

    The planet has been around for billions of years now. Carbon dating which uses the continuous degradation rate of C13 to date once living material backs this theory up. Humans, which live a long time, have a generation every 20 years ish. That’s a lot of generations if we go by Garden of Eden theories.

    I’m not saying that there is no god. I personally don’t believe in one. What I am saying is that scientists test their theories rather than accepting them. We cannot prove a negative. Just as we cannot prove there isn’t
    ‘a tea pot that circles the earth giving commands to the pure’ – R. Dawkins

    But because we cannot prove the negative we must evaluate and make best guesses.

    Now then, there is nothing that has so far disproved Darwin’s theories. So for now they stand. My guess is that they probably will stand for a long time if not for ever.

    I’d love to have a conversation about religion vs. evolution. It sounds as if you’re as passionate about it as I am about evolution.

    I see religion as a way of answering questions when there was no starting point. Why are we here? Why is the grass green? How is there life on the planet?

    I like it, I find it interesting. But I doubt there is a god.

    If you’d like to discuss further, I would, then take a look at my blog (http://putsimply.wordpress.com) and put a comment on one of my stories.

    Better still. Put a link up to it.

  16. Roads,

    I recently read a story of a fisherman who caught a rare, ‘true’ blue lobster. Here’s the link:


    What’s amazing is that this lobster is blue, according to the story because of a genetic mutation. And, furthermore, it occurs in, according to the story, 1 in 3,000,000 lobsters.

    Do you realize how many lobsters this would have to happen in for the entire species to become ‘true’ blue instead of their normal color? Why is it that this ‘genetic mutation’ did nothing to improve this lobster’s life, give him/her a special skill that it did not already have, or alter its appearance so that it superceded other lobsters? Well, maybe it did. After all, if it had been a normal lobster, it would have been eaten. Since it was blue, it survived. 1 in 3,000,000. Absolutely mind-boggling!

    There you go, I just proved ‘survival of the fittest.’ Evolution 1; jerry 0.


    PS–I’m gonna post this on the main page of the blog. Maybe I’ll get some more activity.

  17. Simple,

    Thanks for the reply, the conversation is fine, but you have offered me nothing except the same tired, boring arguments that every evolutionist has ever offered. I understand all this things you are saying but they are ‘nothing new under the sun’ (Solomon). I’m posting an article on my front page. Tell me what you think of it.


  1. 1 I slept through the announcment of evolution’s demise? « Laelaps

    […] Life Under the Blue Sky – When Will Science Make Up It’s Mind? Or, What Would Richard Say? […]

  2. 2 insights into human lineage « weeBLOG.dv

    […] Rather than ask, “This is really interesting. I wonder what this means?” some seem content to sit back, quote Scripture, and gleefully say “See! I was right all along! Case closed!” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: