EVOLUTION….NO SIREE!

I like the Boston Globe because of its objectivity. Take this story for instance. They could easily have picked another story title – like mine – but they stuck to their guns and consistent with good journalistic approaches only presented us the facts of the matter leaving their readership to formulate its own opinion, and ultimately, decision. It was different when I went to school; objectivity was punishable –by fewer grades I mean. So we still had to run around calling each other little monkeys because Darwin said, or at least implied we were and the knowledge of his theory was critical to one’s getting good grades. Personally I fancied learning more about the means of transport he used to get to that eminent island, Galapagos, where he compiled notes on the evolutionary study. Her Majesty’s Ship Beagle. But that’s a story for another day. My teacher at the time, a practicing Christian, told us at the end of her Darwinism sessions that Sir Charles Darwin the man, had on his deathbed renounced the theory of evolution and embraced Christianity. Down the years, I wondered if that was true and why if it were, we were subjected to going through with the studies anyway. I also wondered about how really placatory that little endnote she gave us made her feel, considering she had spent a sizeable amount of time expounding on the theory of Darwinism to these young minds –you could almost think she made the finds with Darwin. Personally I always wondered if this theory were true, why it was that the monkeys and all those other “people of the forest” still existed today and did not evolve themselves. When I hear about evolution, I still have the same questions and as such, this post rests on those little inadequacies, so I shan’t be objective here. Lady Hope, the author of that last claim, I later learnt had been dismissed by members of the Darwin family and so there was little to ride on that the theory of evolution was only the work of an amazing mind’s eye. Before I go on, I’ll paste here some pieces from the Boston Globe story:A 1 1/2-million-year-old skull and an equally old jaw found in Kenya are helping to rewrite the history of early man, eliminating one reputed ancestor from the human lineage and suggesting that another was much more primitive than previously believed, researchers said yesterday.The jawbone shows that Homo habilis, previously believed to be a direct ancestor of Homo erectus and thus of humans, lived side by side with H. erectus, making them sister species rather than mother and daughter."They coexisted at the same time and in the same place for half a million years," said anthropologist Fred Spoor of University College London, a co-author of the paper appearing in the journal Nature. "How likely is it that one would give rise to the other?" Co-author Maeve G. Leakey of Stony Brook University in New York added, "The fact that they stayed separate as individual species for a long time suggests that they had their own ecological niche, thus avoiding direct competition."The situation is similar to modern Homo sapiens and Neanderthals living side by side in Europe 50,000 years ago, said anthropologist William Kimbel of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, who was not involved in the research.Researchers once thought that Neanderthals were a predecessor of modern humans, but it eventually became clear that they were an evolutionary dead end. Now it seems the same is true of H. habilis, he said.At this rate I believe one by one by one, more finds shall be made placing all those supposedly predecessors of ‘modern man’ in the evolutionary ladder, in one timeframe… and then what shall we have left of the great piece of work that was evolution! Or maybe we really shan’t know since this news is only mostly hushed up and if brought to light at all, is found in the deep pages of protracted newspapers, even as the Boston Globe. I guess something like those cigarette smoking warnings that are usually written in the least attractive and easily missed font on their packs. My point is in writing this post, I believe it would be the greatest case of living in denial for people who (adamantly) say man only really evolved from less primitive creatures, a paraphrase to the statement, there never was a creator. It’s opinions such as these here that usually stir up hornet’s nests I’m sure, but for all the world, it’s hard to look around at all creation, the trees, birds, mountains and hills, the seas, even DNA, and say, “But there is no creator!”. Which reminds me of the story of the man who after seeing a great painting asked the man who showed it to him, “Where is the painter?”, to which the latter replied, “But there is no painter!”. Of course the answer is in the question!