11/21/03
By J. Parnell McCarter
Recently I had a conversation with an evolutionist. It started by his comment that Neanderthals were not humans. So I asked him why he thought they were not, and whether he believed they could not breed with (other) humans. Here was his response:
“I am getting my info from several programs I
have watched on the Science channel. New findings have been forthcoming over
the last couple of years. There is some small amount of evidence found that
shows some interbreeding did, in fact, occur, but it was rare. The genetic
difference was not enough to prevent this, but perhaps they just kept to
themselves. There was trade, but not shared communities. This is based on bones
found in caves in Europe, specifically areas of France. You have to look at a
statistical sample basis of how many they thought were alive, verses, how many
bones where found. At any rate, the findings show that the Neanderthals became
extinct around 30,000 years ago. But they did live among modern day homo
sapiens for thousands of years. Fascinating and changes modern anthropology
considerably.”
My reply to him went like this:
“The fact that they could and even did
inter-breed some with (other) humans implies that they are essentially humans,
irrespective of how scientists may **choose** to classify them. Humans cannot breed with non-humans, like
cats, monkeys, and dogs, and when they try in sport to do so, it is called bestiality. But rest assured, no human-cat or
monkey-human will be born from the effort.
But humans can breed with other humans.
Physical evidence indicates too that they were
just as intelligent as (other) humans.
If anything, their average cranial size was larger. They conducted burials, implying they had
awareness of the after-life and religion.
A pigmy in Africa has just as significantly different
features from me as the Neanderthal has with me. Nevertheless, we are all humans, and we **can** all inter-breed,
if we so choose.
May I suggest that their different physical
features would, however, have been a distinct disadvantage when facing an
overwhelming number of white Indo-Europeans invading Europe. They were easily identifiable as another
tribe.
On what basis are you confident that they
died out **30,000 years** ago?”
His reply:
“My, but you have done your homework! What I
am quoting from is the unending stream of documentaries I watch on the various
Science channels. Latest findings are saying the 30,000 years and that is based
on fossil findings.
They make the statement that they were a
different species, but perhaps only a sub-species. The great difference in
genetic material is what has pointed to the remarkable conclusions that they
were on a different line of evolution.
“
My response:
“I went to Princeton with full faith in what
the "scientific authorities" were saying about ages and
macro-evolution, and I came out skeptical of their pronouncements. I went there
to study microbiology, and I ended up graduating in philosophy trying to figure
out why their enterprise was yielding questionable conclusions. The data and
their pronouncements about the data are distinct. Obviously, fossils do not literally say, "I am 30000 years
old". Rather, various techniques
such as radioactive dating are applied to the subject material to try to
ascertain its age, based upon various assumptions about the starting
composition, rate of decay, etc. But
what if the techniques yield contrary results, as I noted they generally
do? Then one falls back upon the model itself, and seeks to explain the
contrary results within the framework of the model. The "scientific
authorities" never allow one to question the evolutionary model itself.
The bottom-line is, the model itself is a matter of pre-suppositional
faith. That's not bad in itself, but
something the "scientific authorities" generally do not mention to
students.
But let me get more to the point of what we
are discussing here: humans. Human
history is the branch of human knowledge that records events in writing. Now how far back do you think human history
goes? 100000 years? 30000 years? No, it actually only goes back around 6000 years (with the
Sumerian civilization). That means the
evolutionary model is asking me to believe that humans just as intelligent as ourselves
were burying one another, making tools, verbally communicating with one another
in some manner, even drawing, etc. for thousands of years, but not writing
(including not writing history). Is
that really credible? And how far apart
are a drawing of a fish and a bird and a man from a written symbol of a fish
and a bird and a man?
And this is not to mention the fact that I am
supposed to believe two non-humans bred and had a human. Now how many times has that been observed in
history or in a laboratory? But the
retort goes like this: 'but the fossil record shows...' So how many fossils do we have of two
non-human parents and a human offspring?
100? 20? 1? No, zero.
Oh, and I am not supposed to believe that
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, even though it was predicted years
before it happened and eye-witnessed at the time by hundreds (from which we
have multiple historical accounts)? Nor
am I to regard what he said about human origins, which would explain that human
history goes back around 6000 years due to humans being around about 6000
years? That would confound the model,
would it not?
So now we come back to that pre-suppositional
faith I mentioned earlier. I realize
man cannot avoid pre-suppositional faith.
But is the evolutionary model the most credible model to place one’s
faith in?”