Cultural Apologetics

[seang200]

Some Questions Asked of me by a Friend of My Son’s

I was asked a series of questions by one of my son’s friends… at the urging of another friend. So I will answer these questions when time permits, here I have answered three. Keep in mind that there will be little referencing going on as I would view this as a dialogue rather than an essay:

Question 1) What church is your church? Its protestant, but which? Baptist, Anabaptist, Methodist, etc.

First of all, we are all Christians (Catholics & Protestants), there are true believers in all denominations and people who go just because their parents did, or out of ritual. So salvation has nothing to do with which church you attend. Within the Protestant category I would be considered a “conservative Evangelical.” The “conservative” in that “tag” has nothing to do with politics. North Park is really considered the same but is a non-denominational affiliation.

Long ago, Graham stressed that this term most be understood in doctrinal terms, if it is to be understood at all. He finally defined an "evangelical" as someone who believes all the doctrines in the ancient Nicene Creed. Graham stressed the centrality of the resurrection and the belief that salvation is through Jesus, alone. "I think there are evangelicals in the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox churches," he said. The journalism Bible basically agrees. The Associated Press Stylebook notes that "evangelical" once served as an adjective. Today it is a noun, referring to a "category of doctrinally conservative Christians. They emphasize the need for a definite, adult commitment or conversion to faith in Christ. Evangelicals stress both doctrinal absolutes and vigorous efforts to win others to belief."

Question 2) Do you think evolution is true? Why or why not?

I think that microevolution is true, but I do not think that these small changes that occur in species (centimeter changes in bird beak sizes, or Great Danes to Chihuahua’s) mean that some day dogs will become cats. Evolution teaches that you came from a rock, Intelligent Design teaches that you came from a “hyper” intelligent Being, which would logically explain your ability to think and make choices. If you came from God you actually have the ability to have free-will, the evolutionist does not. Here I will quote a most interesting thought from Stephen Hawkings (who holds the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Isaac Newton’s chair, at Cambridge) at a lecture given to a university crowd in England entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate.” He discussed whether we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free. In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms dating all the way back to the Big-Bang?

C.S. Lewis puts this in an analogous form:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts — [i.e. of atheistic evolution] — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”

Take note as well that there are many evolutionary theories “out there,” for instance: Punctuationist; Macromutationist; Neutral Selectionist; Structuralist; Natural Order Systematics; Transformed Cladist; Panspermia; Discontinuitist; Theistic Evolutionism; Darwinism; Neo-Darwinism. A theory that seems to be picking up more steam as of late comes from scientists who deal with bone structure… especially spinal disorders. One such scientist/professor is Dr. Bourne is the Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, England (now dead). Dr. Bourne is Oxford educated, and is an American cell biologist /[slash]/ anatomist who is considered by most to be the worlds leading primatologist. He said that apes are descended from man. Why would he believe such a thing?? Because science has never seen any information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory (Darwinism). So since apes are less than us, Dr. Bourne says that science proves his theory.

A more modern view of this comes from Dr. Aaron G. Filler, who studied evolutionary theory under some of the leading biologists and anthropologists of our time: Ernst Mayer, Stephen J. Gould, David Pilbeam, and Irven DeVore, he wrote a book entitled The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species. In this book he argues like Dr. Bourne that apes have “devolved” from mankind… not mankind coming from apes. This is the “monkey wrench” in current evolutionary consensus. In other words, much of what evolution teaches about the primates may be very wrong!

Another reason I reject it is because the evidence leads to Intelligent Design, you can see from this list of 660 scientists and professors that many deep thinking people are skeptical of Darwinian evolution and have chosen to align themselves with the Discovery Institute. There is now a new list that will grow quarterly as well, that list is of Medical Doctors and professors.

Science should not be:

• “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

It should be:

• “Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”

Question 3) What is your views on gays? Are they bad? Are they going to hell? Are you born this way?

I have written heavily on this subject, both papers are on my blog at:

• http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.../Homosexuality

The homosexual man or woman is just as much a sinner as you or me. We all need Christ. To touch on the hell issue first, I believe hell is a testament to free-will, and dignity as well. C.S. Lewis mentioned that hell is locked from the inside. The only thing separating mankind from God is a belief in the finished work on the Cross. By choice people reject their Creator, they choose their path, God never imposes it. Many who are saved are not immediately pure in action, nor will they ever be. Sometimes people take decades to work through their faults (counseling, prayer, reading God’s Word, etc), so just like the person who may cheat on his wife regularly, when he comes to a saving knowledge of God, he will be challenged to change his ways and seek counseling and prayer and reference from God’s Word. The same with a gay man or woman. If they truly have a saving knowledge of God, they will be challenged by the Holy Spirit to seek biblical guidance in their life, and like many others, they will turn away from their homosexual lifestyles.

However, there is a “created order,” or, even a natural order (if you do not believe in God). My argument for heterosexual (between a man and a woman) unions is usable both by the atheist (non believer in God) and the theist (a believer in God – in the Judeo-Christian sense). Here is the crux of the matter in regards to “nature’s order:”

“…take gold as an example, it has inherent in its nature intrinsic qualities that make it expensive: good conductor of electricity, rare, never tarnishes, and the like. The male and female have the potential to become a single biological organism, or single organic unit, or principle. Two essentially becoming one. The male and female, then, have inherent to their nature intrinsic qualities that two mated males or two mated females never actualize in their courtship… nor can they ever. The potential stays just that, potential, never being realized…..

“….Think of a being that reproduces, not by mating, but by some act performed by individuals. Imagine that for these same beings, movement and digestion is performed not by individuals, but only by the complementary pairs that unite for this purpose. Would anyone acquainted with such beings have difficulty understanding that in respect to movement and digestion, the organism is a united pair, or an organic unity?”

So you see, the two heterosexual organisms that join in a sexual union cease being two separate organisms for a short time and become one organism capable of reproduction. This is what the state and the church are sealing in a marriage, this intrinsic union. The homosexual couple can never achieve this union, so “natures order” has endowed the heterosexual union with an intrinsic quality that other relationships do not have or could never attain. Both the atheist and theist can argue from this point, because either we were created this way or we evolved this way. Either way, nature has imposed on the sexual union being discussed.

Also, I do not think it is wholly genetic. I believe choice is involved as well as violence. For instance, take this thought from a pro-choice, lesbian woman, Tammy Bruce:

“ . . . . and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left's moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today. . . . Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood -- molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the 'coming-of-age' experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.”

What she is basically saying is that there are emotional reasons, usually trauma, or circumstances that push these young boys into the choices they make in regards to their sexuality. For instance, one of my co-workers is a homosexual man. He is a wonderful guy; I would invite him to my wedding if I could go back in time. He is very open about his past, he was “initiated” into the homosexual lifestyle by a grown black man when he was 14. In other words, he was raped. Whether he feels now that he consented, or the person was a family friend or complete stranger. This act of sex with a minor by a grown man is rape. And this rape, at an age where boys are having surges of hormones and confused about a lot of things is what Tammy Bruce was speaking to. It is a psychological trauma that if not dealt with has traumatic results in one’s life. This sometimes works its way into sexual matters. There are many homosexual people, Al Rantel (790am 6pm to 9pm), to name a more popular one, that believe marriage should be kept between a man and a woman. Tammy Bruce wants it, but she, like most Republicans, want the states to decide, and not the Supreme Court.

Also, in 1993, the biggest march by the “gay” community (Elite gay community) on Washington was held, and they had this as part of their platform:

• The implications of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.

• The lowering of the age [12 years old to be exact] of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.

• The legalization of homosexual marriages.

• Custody, adoption, and foster-care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.

• the redefinition of the family to include the full diversity of all family structures.

• The access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America.

• Affirmative action for homosexuals.

• The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health-care plan.

Obviously the Elite gay community Tammy Bruce spoke of knows which age is best for “recruiting,” e.g., traumatizing.

More can be said on all the above issues, but my book is not yet written.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just wanted to add here that the above was a "blog" where I had many linkes built into the text. So some of what is above is lost here at TW. I will put below the most important link for the curious, it is the list of scientists and medical doctors that dissent from Darwinism, enjoy:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

http://www.pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

Moderated By: JB

No worries, but it's generally preferred that back-to-back posting not be done so swiftly (~5 hours) after the first post is made. A day is the right time, although you can still edit your first post for up to 45 minutes after making it or ask a mod to make the edit for you.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Philosophickle]

If you are interested in C.S. Lewis' argument from reason you may want to check out a debate I'm having right now: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=107509

[FreezBee]

Hello Seang

One such scientist/professor is Dr. Bourne is the Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, England (now dead). Dr. Bourne is Oxford educated, and is an American cell biologist /[slash]/ anatomist who is considered by most to be the worlds leading primatologist. He said that apes are descended from man. Why would he believe such a thing?? Because science has never seen any information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory (Darwinism). So since apes are less than us, Dr. Bourne says that science proves his theory.

Excuse me for asking, but in what way are apes less than us?

And what does Dr. Bourne mean by "information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory"?

A more modern view of this comes from Dr. Aaron G. Filler, who studied evolutionary theory under some of the leading biologists and anthropologists of our time: Ernst Mayer, Stephen J. Gould, David Pilbeam, and Irven DeVore, he wrote a book entitled The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species. In this book he argues like Dr. Bourne that apes have “devolved” from mankind… not mankind coming from apes. This is the “monkey wrench” in current evolutionary consensus. In other words, much of what evolution teaches about the primates may be very wrong!

Apes cannot be said to have devolved/evolved from humans, since humans are apes. We are simply one species of ape.

Another reason I reject it is because the evidence leads to Intelligent Design, you can see from this list of 660 scientists and professors that many deep thinking people are skeptical of Darwinian evolution and have chosen to align themselves with the Discovery Institute. There is now a new list that will grow quarterly as well, that list is of Medical Doctors and professors.

Then I suggest that you have a peek at this thread.


FreezBee

[seang200]

Hello Seang



Excuse me for asking, but in what way are apes less than us?

And what does Dr. Bourne mean by "information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory"?



Apes cannot be said to have devolved/evolved from humans, since humans are apes. We are simply one species of ape.



Then I suggest that you have a peek at this thread.


FreezBee

I am quoting evolutionists who give a case from genetics and spinal and skeletal structure that Ape's evolved from (devolved from) humans. I am not backing that argument! I am a creationist/Intelligent Design guy. I am merely throwing a "monkey wrench" into the thinking that evolution is so well explained that there is some sort of Metanarrative involved in its explanatory power.

This is a debate for evolutionists versus evolutionists.

[FreezBee]

I am quoting evolutionists who give a case from genetics and spinal and skeletal structure that Ape's evolved from (devolved from) humans. I am not backing that argument! I am a creationist/Intelligent Design guy. I am merely throwing a "monkey wrench" into the thinking that evolution is so well explained that there is some sort of Metanarrative involved in its explanatory power.

Well, have you considered that those evolutionists may just be creationists in disguise?

This is a debate for evolutionists versus evolutionists.

Then let's see, if any evolutionists will debate any evolutionists over this matter


- FreezBee

[Ratnat]

I am quoting evolutionists who give a case from genetics and spinal and skeletal structure that Ape's evolved from (devolved from) humans. I am not backing that argument! I am a creationist/Intelligent Design guy. I am merely throwing a "monkey wrench" into the thinking that evolution is so well explained that there is some sort of Metanarrative involved in its explanatory power.

This is a debate for evolutionists versus evolutionists.

They must not be aware of Chromosome 2... which leads me to believe they are not evolutionists.

[TheGreenMan]

I am quoting evolutionists who give a case from genetics and spinal and skeletal structure that Ape's evolved from (devolved from) humans. I am not backing that argument! I am a creationist/Intelligent Design guy. I am merely throwing a "monkey wrench" into the thinking that evolution is so well explained that there is some sort of Metanarrative involved in its explanatory power.

This is a debate for evolutionists versus evolutionists.

Never heard that before from a scientist (or anyone else for that matter).

[ericmurphy]

I'm not going to respond to this entire post, because much of it is a matter of religious belief which is of no consequence to me. But you've made several incorrect statements about evolutionary theory, which is of consequence to me.

I think that microevolution is true, but I do not think that these small changes that occur in species (centimeter changes in bird beak sizes, or Great Danes to Chihuahua’s) mean that some day dogs will become cats.

Evolutionary theory holds that dogs will never evolve into cats. Nor will fish evolve into starfish or anything alive today evolve into anything else alive today. This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance of what evolutionary theory is.

Evolutionary theory holds that all life is related by common descent with modification from one or a small number of universal common ancestors. Evolutionary theory says nothing about which organisms will evolve into which other organisms. Various hypotheses have arisen which attempt to establish tentative ancestor-descendant relationships between various taxa. Some of those hypotheses have better evidentiary support than others. But the support grouping all of life into a phylogenetic tree exhibiting nested hierarchies (whose only known explanation is common descent with modification) is so utterly overwhelming that the central holding of evolutionary theory, that all life is related via common descent, is essentially no longer open to rational dispute.

Evolution teaches that you came from a rock

It does no such thing. Evolutionary theory asserts that you are related by common descent to all other life on earth.

<snip>

C.S. Lewis puts this in an analogous form:

Take note as well that there are many evolutionary theories “out there,” for instance: Punctuationist; Macromutationist; Neutral Selectionist; Structuralist; Natural Order Systematics; Transformed Cladist; Panspermia; Discontinuitist; Theistic Evolutionism; Darwinism; Neo-Darwinism. A theory that seems to be picking up more steam as of late comes from scientists who deal with bone structure… especially spinal disorders. One such scientist/professor is Dr. Bourne is the Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, England (now dead). Dr. Bourne is Oxford educated, and is an American cell biologist /[slash]/ anatomist who is considered by most to be the worlds leading primatologist. He said that apes are descended from man. Why would he believe such a thing?? Because science has never seen any information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory (Darwinism). So since apes are less than us, Dr. Bourne says that science proves his theory.

Craziness. First, all of the theories Lewis mentions, Punctuationist, etc. are all subtheories subsumed within evolutionary theory. Some, all, or none of them could be correct, but they are all basically attempts to explain how life has evolved from a common ancestor. None of them in any way disputes or changes the underlying hypothesis that all life is descended from one or a small number of universal common ancestors.

Nothing alive today is descended from anything else alive today. Humans are apes, so neither humans are descended from apes nor are apes descended from man. All are descended from a common ancestor that lived at some time in the past, but does not live today.

A more modern view of this comes from Dr. Aaron G. Filler, who studied evolutionary theory under some of the leading biologists and anthropologists of our time: Ernst Mayer, Stephen J. Gould, David Pilbeam, and Irven DeVore, he wrote a book entitled The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species. In this book he argues like Dr. Bourne that apes have “devolved” from mankind… not mankind coming from apes. This is the “monkey wrench” in current evolutionary consensus. In other words, much of what evolution teaches about the primates may be very wrong!

Same problems. 1) humans are apes. 2) no ape alive today is descended from humans, and humans are not descendants of any ape alive today. It would be like asking if you are descended from your cousin, or is your cousin descended from you.

Another reason I reject it is because the evidence leads to Intelligent Design, you can see from this list of 660 scientists and professors that many deep thinking people are skeptical of Darwinian evolution and have chosen to align themselves with the Discovery Institute. There is now a new list that will grow quarterly as well, that list is of Medical Doctors and professors.

The DI list is made up of numerous individuals who are not scientists, and virtually no biologists (N.B., Michael Behe, e.g., is a biochemist, not a biologist.) Meanwhile, the "Steves Project," which is restricted to actual credentialed scientists (not all of whom are biologists) whose name is either Steve or some variation thereof (Stephen, Stefan, Stephanie), is longer than the DI list.

Intelligent Design has no significant support within the scientific community. It makes no hypotheses, makes no testable predictions, and therefore is not science. It is at best philosophy, and if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in religious studies, not in the science classroom.

[ericmurphy]

I am quoting evolutionists who give a case from genetics and spinal and skeletal structure that Ape's evolved from (devolved from) humans. I am not backing that argument! I am a creationist/Intelligent Design guy. I am merely throwing a "monkey wrench" into the thinking that evolution is so well explained that there is some sort of Metanarrative involved in its explanatory power.

This is a debate for evolutionists versus evolutionists.

No it's not. No "evolutionist" believes humans are descended from apes, because humans are apes. Nothing alive today is descended from anything alive today. Humans and other apes are related by common descent from a common ancestor which is no longer alive.

This is a debate for creationists versus creationists. It's a nonsensical debate from an evolutionary perspective.

[ck11]

Question 2) Do you think evolution is true? Why or why not?

I think that microevolution is true, but I do not think that these small changes that occur in species (centimeter changes in bird beak sizes, or Great Danes to Chihuahua’s) mean that some day dogs will become cats. Evolution teaches that you came from a rock, Intelligent Design teaches that you came from a “hyper” intelligent Being, which would logically explain your ability to think and make choices. If you came from God you actually have the ability to have free-will, the evolutionist does not. Here I will quote a most interesting thought from Stephen Hawkings (who holds the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Isaac Newton’s chair, at Cambridge) at a lecture given to a university crowd in England entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate.” He discussed whether we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free. In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms dating all the way back to the Big-Bang?

Like Eric, I am not really interested in your religious opinions, but I do have something to say about your comments about evolution. Let me add to what Eric already said (and I hope you address his comments).

First of all, note that while ID accepts a "hyper" intelligent being, namely your god, they are also fine with the idea that aliens are responsible for life. How do you feel about that?

Hawkings is not a biologist and evolution deals with biology. And I note you provided no link to his comments.

Take note as well that there are many evolutionary theories “out there,” for instance: Punctuationist; Macromutationist; Neutral Selectionist; Structuralist; Natural Order Systematics; Transformed Cladist; Panspermia; Discontinuitist; Theistic Evolutionism; Darwinism; Neo-Darwinism. A theory that seems to be picking up more steam as of late comes from scientists who deal with bone structure… especially spinal disorders. One such scientist/professor is Dr. Bourne is the Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, England (now dead). Dr. Bourne is Oxford educated, and is an American cell biologist /[slash]/ anatomist who is considered by most to be the worlds leading primatologist. He said that apes are descended from man. Why would he believe such a thing?? Because science has never seen any information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory (Darwinism). So since apes are less than us, Dr. Bourne says that science proves his theory.

Can you provide a link to Dr. Bourne's data supporting this idea that the other apes are decended from man? I have read many of the genetics papers describing the link between humans and other apes and I do not recall this concept.

This upward "slant" of which you speak is actually a creationist idea - the ladder of life. This idea was supplanted by Darwin who replaced the idea of a progressive ladder of species with a bush-like structure.

A more modern view of this comes from Dr. Aaron G. Filler, who studied evolutionary theory under some of the leading biologists and anthropologists of our time: Ernst Mayer, Stephen J. Gould, David Pilbeam, and Irven DeVore, he wrote a book entitled The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species. In this book he argues like Dr. Bourne that apes have “devolved” from mankind… not mankind coming from apes. This is the “monkey wrench” in current evolutionary consensus. In other words, much of what evolution teaches about the primates may be very wrong!

Another reason I reject it is because the evidence leads to Intelligent Design, you can see from this list of 660 scientists and professors that many deep thinking people are skeptical of Darwinian evolution and have chosen to align themselves with the Discovery Institute. There is now a new list that will grow quarterly as well, that list is of Medical Doctors and professors.

So this Dr. Filler wrote a book. Anyone can write a book. Did he present his ideas in peer-reviewed technical journal articles? With supporting data? If so, could you please provide some links?

There are a half million scientists in the US. How is a group of 660 (most of whom do not address evolution in their work) anything but a really tiny fringe group?

[Steviepinhead]

ck11:

Can you provide a link to Dr. Bourne's data supporting this idea that the other apes are decended from man? I have read many of the genetics papers describing the link between humans and other apes and I do not recall this concept.

Haven't heard of this Bourne fellow. Not the guy in the recent movie series, one trusts!

But this Aaron Filler guy is interesting (though not necessarily in a good way):

Based on ... updated biological information, Dr. Filler re-examines the latest fossil evidence to reveal that the human body form is far more ancient than has been widely accepted--emerging abruptly, apparently due to a Pax gene change--at the time of Morotopithecus 21.6 million years ago. As a consequence, Filler argues, there is now compelling evidence that apes descended from humans and not the other way around.

Taken from the book description here:
http://www.amazon.com/Upright-Ape-Ne...QA8ZFPP6H5YM9D
regarding Filler's book The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species .

While this sounds a tad wacky, it does not sound like Filler rejects evolutionary relationships as a whole (nor does it sound like he subscribes to apes as "degenerate" or "fallen" humans necessarily). It just sounds like he's convinced himself from his own review of the vertebral morphology of fossil apes that the upright stance goes back 20 million years and thus that the knuckle-walking of contemporary non-human apes is a derived feature...

[ck11]

ck11:

Haven't heard of this Bourne fellow. Not the guy in the recent movie series, one trusts!

But this Aaron Filler guy is interesting (though not necessarily in a good way):

Taken from the book description here:
http://www.amazon.com/Upright-Ape-Ne...QA8ZFPP6H5YM9D
regarding Filler's book The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species .

While this sounds a tad wacky, it does not sound like Filler rejects evolutionary relationships as a whole (nor does it sound like he subscribes to apes as "degenerate" or "fallen" humans necessarily). It just sounds like he's convinced himself from his own review of the vertebral morphology of fossil apes that the upright stance goes back 20 million years and thus that the knuckle-walking of contemporary non-human apes is a derived feature...

Filler has an MD (Chicago, 1986) and a Ph.D (Harvard, 1986).
Here is one of his publications dealing with the issue you described:

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetch...l.pone.0001019

[seang200]

Just so you guys (and gals?) know, I never said Bourn or Filler were anything but evolutionists. But I keep every one of my son’s science textbooks from his schools... and they make, like university textbooks do as well, evolution sound like a tight idea that is a "Grand Narrative" (Metanarrative) that has all scientists unified in lock-step. Which was the point with my son’s friend… the scientific community is not in lock step. Some think that Man came from apes (a small minority), and some think apes came from us (a small minority).

This idea is picking up steam, and soon I am sure you will see it in some textbooks that deal with skeletal science and structure. Just like Punctuated Equilibrium wasn’t in textbooks a decade or two ago, now this theory is mentioned in most. Much to the chagrin of neo-Darwinists.

Got to go… at work.

[ericmurphy]

Just so you guys (and gals?) know, I never said Bourn or Filler were anything but evolutionists. But I keep every one of my son’s science textbooks from his schools... and they make, like university textbooks do as well, evolution sound like a tight idea that is a "Grand Narrative" (Metanarrative) that has all scientists unified in lock-step. Which was the point with my son’s friend… the scientific community is not in lock step. Some think that Man came from apes (a small minority), and some think apes came from us (a small minority).

Again, both of these statements, at least as you have framed them, are nonsensical. Humans are apes; they are classified as such, even Carolus Linneaus (who was a creationist) classified them as such. Therefore, it makes exactly no sense to talk about humans being descended from apes or apes being descended from humans.

If hominid taxonomy is correct (and in its broad outlines it virtually certainly is), humans and other apes share a common ancestor, which probably lived 8–15mya. As I've said at least twice before, no organism living today is descended from any other organism living today, any more than you are descended from your cousin or your cousin is descended from you.

This idea is picking up steam, and soon I am sure you will see it in some textbooks that deal with skeletal science and structure.

What "idea"? I guarantee you, you will never see a credible paleoanthropology paper or textbook ever say either that humans are descended from apes or apes are descended from humans. I hope I've made it clear why this is so.

Hominid fossils are rare, hominin fossils less so, since hominins alone among the great apes do not inhabit tropical rainforest exclusively. It's difficult to think of an environment more inimical to fossilization processes than tropical rainforest. So it's probably always going to be controversial as to which morphologies developed first in hominids. But what we can say, based on multiple lines of evidence, both genetic and morphological, is that orangs diverged first from the surviving hominids, then gorillas, then chimps, with (as far as I know) some wiggle room as to how long after the human-chimp split P. troglodyte and P. paniscus diverged.

But one more time, just for emphasis: it is meaningless to discuss whether humans are "descended" from apes or apes are "descended" from humans, because humans are apes, and none of the living hominids are "descended" from any of the other living hominids.

Just like Punctuated Equilibrium wasn’t in textbooks a decade or two ago, now this theory is mentioned in most. Much to the chagrin of neo-Darwinists.

Got to go… at work.

Why would neodarwinists be "chagrined" about punc-eek? Evolutionary theory accommodates punctuated equilibrium just fine, in the same way that it accommodates natural selection, sexual selection, and neutral drift as all methods of evolutionary change.

[seang200]

Again, both of these statements, at least as you have framed them, are nonsensical. Humans are apes; they are classified as such, even Carolus Linneaus (who was a creationist) classified them as such. Therefore, it makes exactly no sense to talk about humans being descended from apes or apes being descended from humans.

If hominid taxonomy is correct (and in its broad outlines it virtually certainly is), humans and other apes share a common ancestor, which probably lived 8–15mya. As I've said at least twice before, no organism living today is descended from any other organism living today, any more than you are descended from your cousin or your cousin is descended from you.



What "idea"? I guarantee you, you will never see a credible paleoanthropology paper or textbook ever say either that humans are descended from apes or apes are descended from humans. I hope I've made it clear why this is so.

Hominid fossils are rare, hominin fossils less so, since hominins alone among the great apes do not inhabit tropical rainforest exclusively. It's difficult to think of an environment more inimical to fossilization processes than tropical rainforest. So it's probably always going to be controversial as to which morphologies developed first in hominids. But what we can say, based on multiple lines of evidence, both genetic and morphological, is that orangs diverged first from the surviving hominids, then gorillas, then chimps, with (as far as I know) some wiggle room as to how long after the human-chimp split P. troglodyte and P. paniscus diverged.

But one more time, just for emphasis: it is meaningless to discuss whether humans are "descended" from apes or apes are "descended" from humans, because humans are apes, and none of the living hominids are "descended" from any of the other living hominids.



Why would neodarwinists be "chagrined" about punc-eek? Evolutionary theory accommodates punctuated equilibrium just fine, in the same way that it accommodates natural selection, sexual selection, and neutral drift as all methods of evolutionary change.

Well, what is your proof that man and ape, as well as a banana and whale all came from a rock? You seem to have some privileged information that I am missing? For instance, do you agree with the following statement?

• “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the modern history of Western cultures: it is not a high-order empirical observation, induced from the objective study of nature . . . We mention this not to discredit Darwin in any way, but merely to point out that even the greatest scientific achievements [neo-Darwinism] are rooted in their cultural contexts—and to argue that gradualism was part of the cultural context, not of nature.”