Origin Of Humans

As often happens to most people, with age we become exposed to information that begins to melt down our belief systems. The first melt down in traditional western society is the Santa hoax. But the playful charade by parents is easily forgiven when we experience parenthood and find ourselves continuing the charade. However, once we seek higher realms of understanding we also discover that many of our core beliefs as adults are held together with nothing more than anecdotal records which managed to survive the ravages of time. One of the most familiar being the concept of creationism (Intelligent design). However, there is nothing nefarious about those who proselytize the concept. They state quite emphatically that it is based on faith. No warning label is necessary since all of it is on the surface and you either accept or reject the concept.

Another core belief that is proselytized not from religion but rather the hallowed halls of academia is evolutionism. What seems to escape our attention is that both creationism and evolutionism rely on faith. But since evolutionism is accepted in scientific circles we assume it must have some basis in scientific fact. Evolutionism is based on a guess that natural selection was the process which changed the DNA structure of one form of life to gradually become something else; such as the transformation of the great apes to humans. Morphological adaption within a species is actually quite common and well documented. As an example the dull gray fur of the snowshoe rabbit turning white in winter. What is not documented is a mutation turning the rabbit into something other than a rabbit. And even permanent morphological changes take place as a result of environmental changes such as those of the Stickleback fish.

Within a “genus” many adaptations are possible and usually occur due to environmental causes. However, no matter how many mutations within a genus take place , it has never been demonstrated to change into a totally different genus such as Gasterosteus (three spined sticklevack) into Oncorhynchus (rainbow trout). And yet that is exactly the process claimed by paleoanthropologist as the mechanism responsible for the advent of homo sapiens on planet earth: evolutionism. Genetic testing does demonstrate DNA similarities between humans and chimps at 96 percent, but then again it also demonstrates an 86 percent similarity between humans and mice.

There is a third alternative for an explanation regarding the advent of humans on planet earth. It makes no attempt to explain existential questions and simply states that humans were manufactured by extraterrestrials. This was essentially the conclusion of Zecharia Sitchin. He arrived at this conclusion from his study of ancient Sumerian text. However, there is no more proof of this explanation than there is for evolution or creationism. Again it is a faith based concept.

While studying these 'guesses' about the advent of humans on planet earth may be entertaining, it has absolutely no value in terms of explaining the mundane questions regarding your daily life. Will you be able to pay your rent, purchase food, care for your family, or at a more fundamental level maintain some level of personal freedom? Is it necessary to understand the reason for your existence in order to experience the beauty of a waterfall, or love of life itself and all it has to offer? The only reason to search through concepts of human origination is that it may provide some clues as to the barriers which prevent you from achieving your full potential: self actualization.

The barriers to self discovery and knowledge are so plentiful that it staggers the imagination. What has become obvious at least to me is that many of those barriers are held in place not only by our lack of self confidence but also by purposeful act of others. What we often perceive as hotly contested debates of "truth" is nothing more than a contrived illusion to keep us distracted from achieving our full potential.

 

:juggle:

 

evolution is the only theory of the origin of species accepted by the scientific community. it is the only theory of the origin of species backed a large body of scientific observations. it is not faith based.

whether or not god exists is not a scientific question. it is not possible for science to answer such a question. concluding that god does not exist based on evolutionary theory is therefor based on faith.

one could believe in god and also believe in the scientific validity of evolution.

 

I'm a Christian and faith is an important part of my life. It's also true that in my line of work I could probably get by on the basis of Bronze Age science. From the vantage point of central Oklahoma, the earth looks awfully flat. But I think an important part of my "self-actualization" is understanding the world and universe around me. Humans are distinguished from other species by our reasoning power, and our curiosity extends far beyond what is strictly necessary for survival.

As scientific theories go, evolution seems impressive. It accounts for the known facts, and is supported by evidence from a wide variety of sources, including the fossil record, geology, genetics, cellular-molecular biology, and laboratory experiments. As a Christian, I'm persuaded by the writings of such outstanding Christian scholars as Dr. Kenneth Miller, evolutionary biologist, and Dr. Francis Collins, geneticist and former head of the human genome project--not to mention Dr. Michael Behe, one of the leading proponents of the rival theory of Intelligent Design, who concedes common ancestry between humans and apes. Unlike Intelligent Design, evolutionists do actual scientific research to test refutable hypotheses, instead of just researching new ways to discredit evolution. And evolution does meet an important criterion for a scientific theory: it is refutable--one Cambrian rabbit away from being rejected. So far no Cambrian rabbits! As for the lack of transitional species or evidence of "macro-evolution" there seem to be plenty of them to convince most scientists. Archaeopteryx, for example, seems to be transitional between reptile and bird, with teeth and tail as well as wings and feathers. To determined Creationists like Duane Gish, it's just a funny looking bird or lizard, but most respected scientists are convinced its a separate, transitional species. As fallible humans, "Truth" may be beyond our reach, or if we did find it, we'd never be sure. The best we can do is gather all the evidence we can, and apply the most rigorous methods of inquiry and analysis available. I think evolutionists have done that.