"You may not be interested in the God vs. Darwin issue, but the God vs. Darwin issue is interested in you." - Lawrence Auster
Exhibit 1,389: This story is the banner headline on The Huffington Post.
Ardi: Oldest Human Skeleton Discovered, Bipedal Origin May Be Revealed
The article begins innocently enough...
The big news in the journal Science tomorrow is the discovery of the oldest human skeleton--a small-brained, 110-pound female of the species Ardipithecus ramidus, nicknamed "Ardi." She lived in what is now Ethiopia 4.4 million years ago, which makes her over a million years older than the famous "Lucy" fossil, found in the same region thirty-five years ago.
Fine. Interesting. Then we come to these LOL Darwinist myths...
The journalist writes....
One of the defining attributes of Lucy and all other hominids--members of our evolutionary lineage, including ourselves--is that they walk upright on two legs....
So why did her species become bipedal while it was still living partly in the trees, especially since walking on two legs is a much less efficient way of getting about?
Yes. Why? Do tell...
Let's suppose that some lesser male, with poor little stubby canines, figures out that he can entice a fertile female into mating by bringing her some food...Such a strategy could catch on if searching for food required a lot of time and exposure to predators. Males would be far more successful food-providers if they had their hands free to carry home loads of fruits and tubers--which would favor walking on two legs.
So our ancestors starting walking on 2 legs so the males could carry more food to their lovers?
To quote Ace Ventura: "Alllllright then..."
But this is the best part...
Buried among the slew of papers about the new find is one about the creature's sex life. It makes fascinating reading, especially if you like learning why human females don't know when they are ovulating...
If the female knew when she was fertile, she could basically cheat the system by taking all the food offered by her milquetoast of a provider, then cuckold him with a dominant male when she was ovulating, scoring the best of both worlds. The food-for-sex contract thus depends on what Lovejoy calls "the most unique human character"--ovulation that not only goes unannounced to the males of the group, but is concealed even from the female herself.
Read that last line again...The female half-monkey/half-human - in her infinite wisdom - concealed ovulation "even from herself." Sometimes I wonder if the Darwinists are just testing us to see how dumb we are.
The article concludes...
Regular meals, monogamy, and discretion--who would have thought our origins were so sedate?
Speak for yourself, pal.
But seriously...Why do the Darwinists feel compelled to inject such Reductionist nonsense into a legitimate news story?... Why do they feel compelled to "de-rationalize people, and thus, dehumanize them."
To answer that, let's turn to the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.
In his book, The Last Word, Nagel talks about the "Cosmic Authority Problem" and the "fear of religion" found among scientists....
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions...I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world"
If the Scientific Elite has a genuine "fear of religion," no one should be surprised that they want to spread that "fear" to the masses. And thus they will use every tool at the their disposal to do precisely that.
H/T: Subversive Thinking.
For more on this topic, see my essay, Sex with Blondes and Darwin.
***UPDATE, OCT. 1, 2009***
This is interesting...
Oldest Known Hominid Sheds Light on Human Evolution (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
The first major analysis of one of the earliest known hominids suggests that humans may not have evolved from apes.
One of the principal investigators, C. Owen Lovejoy, associate professor of biological anthropology at Kent State University, said the research reveals that the reverse could be true: Apes might have evolved from the hominids that eventually evolved into humans.
"People often think we evolved from apes, but no, apes in many ways evolved from us," Dr. Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."
The research is being published in a special edition of the journal Science.
Doesn't Dr. Lovejoy know that "evolution is a fact," and not to question it?
"But what's evolution?" asks the mouse. "That word can mean a lot of things."
"It doesn't matter. Just don't question it."
H/T: Jonah Goldberg.
***UPDATE, OCT. 2, 2009***
Lawrence Auster emailed me this morning with a few suggested changes to my essay for the sake of clarity (which I've made), and a few questions about my argument.
This is what I wrote back...
Larry: Yes, you are right. The article quoting Lovejoy is incoherent, and in retrospect, my own article deconstructing Lovejoy and the Darwinists could use a bit more clarity. Let me try again through this email.
I guess I had 2 major points...
1) Regarding the Huffington Post, I thought it was peculiar that at least half of the article was regurgitating Darwiniian "just-so" stories about human evolution millions of years ago that cannot - by definition - be proven or disproven. We're so used to these stories cropping up in articles about fossil discoveries that we forget that a responsible journalist would simply report the facts of the event (the discovery of the fossil), or (if they simply can't control themselves) repeat the Darwinian stories, but also add the caveat that these stories are speculation at best, far from proven facts. And then I ask: "What compels the Scientific Community to do these things?" That's when I cite the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel who argues that the Scientific Elite has a "fear of religion" - a fear - that - if these articles are any guide - they are quite eager to spread to the masses.
2) Regarding the Dr. Lovejoy quote, it does sound like the good doctor himself is confused by what it all means. And that too is my point. The arch-Darwinists constantly repea,t "Darwinism is a fact; Darwinism is fact," but for any honest investigator, it is NOT a fact. It might true, or it might be false, but based on the evidence, it is NOT a fact.
Dr. Lovejoy speculates that apes evolved from humans. By saying this, Dr. Lovejoy (who as far as I know is an arch-Darwinist) is suggesting a radical reinterpretation of Darwinian theory: that apes evolved from humans (not the other way around).
Needless to say, the fact that this question is still being entertained in the year 2009 (150 years after Darwin's book) shows that Darwinian evolution ISN'T a fact. It's a speculation. The whole thing is a speculation.
Larry's articles on this topic can be found here, here, and here.
I like this quote of his:
"I hereby move that all popular journalism about evolution and related subjects be banned. It's worse than useless. But the problem is, the scientists are little better than the journalists. Much like the journalists, the scientists allow themselves to say whatever they feel like saying, with no concern for whether it is internally consistent or not, and even whether it makes sense or not."
I second that motion!
**UPDATE, OCT. 6, 2009**
Casey Luskin summarizes some of the major problems with "Ardi" here and here.
"What do we have with “Ardi”? We have an extremely crushed “Irish stew” fossil that has undergone extensive reconstruction in order to become part of a PR campaign to make bold claims of ancestral status to the human line, even though at base its qualities are very similar to previously known fossils, and there's a lot of skepticism about the claims being made. In other words, we have the typical media circus that we find every time a new "missing link" is found.
Indeed. The clowns in the circus (especially those at The Huffington Post) should feel quite silly.
**UPDATE, OCT. 7, 2009**
According to this article, The New York Times put the Ardi story "on the front page...above the fold." Shall we add the NY Times to the list of "clowns" who report breathlessly about every new "missing link" when no such link has been proved? Sure, why not?