Free Essay

The Cradlle of Civilization

In: Historical Events

Submitted By kandi1234
Words 6912
Pages 28
Starting with the Sumerians, the first great culture 6,000 years ago, through the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, everyone accepted that some form of heavenly beings had created all of life and, as a crowning achievement, topped it off with humans. Now, consider that for a moment. Today the CEO of a medium-sized corporation can verbally issue an instruction to be carried out company-wide and have no hope it will reach the lower echelons intact. So the fact that most historical cultures, from first to most recent (our own), believed essentially the same creation story is astonishing in its consistency.

Naturally, such long-term consistency made it extremely difficult to challenge when the accumulation of scientific evidence could no longer be ignored. Charles Darwin is usually credited with issuing the first call for a rational examination of divine creation as the belief system regarding the origins of life and humanity. However, in his 1859 classic, The Origin Of Species, he skirted both issues in an attempt to placate his era’s dominant power structure—organized religion. Though he used the word "origin" in the title, he was careful to discuss only how species developed from each other, not how life originated. And he simply avoided discussing humanity’s origins.

Ultimately, pressure from both supporters and critics forced him to tackle that thorny issue in 1871’s The Descent Of Man; but Charles Darwin was never comfortable at the cutting edge of the social debate he helped engineer.

The true roots of the challenge to divine creation extend 65 years prior to Darwin, back to 1795, when two men—a naturalist and a geologist—published stunning works. The naturalist was Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin’s grandfather, a brilliant intellectual in his own right. In The Laws Of Organic Life he suggested that population numbers drove competition for resources, that such competition was a possible agent of physical change, that humans were closely related to monkeys and apes, and that sexual selection could have an effect on species modification. In short, he dealt with nearly all of the important topics his grandson would later expand upon, except natural selection.

The geologist was a Scotsman, James Hutton, whose Theory Of The Earth suggested for the first time that Earth might be much older than 6,000 years, then the universally accepted time frame established a century earlier by Anglican Bishop James Ussher. (Many if not most of today’s mainstream Christians are convinced that the creation date of 6,000 years ago is Holy Writ, even though mortal Bishop Ussher arrived at it by the mundane method of calculating the who begat whoms listed in the Bible.)

Hutton studied the layering of soils in geological strata and concluded that rain washed soil off the continents and into the seas; at the bottom of the seas heat from inside the planet turned soil into rock; over great stretches of time the new rocks were elevated to continent level and slowly pushed up to form mountains; then in turn those mountains were weathered away to form new layers of soil. This unending cycle meant two things: Earth was not a static body changed only superficially at the surface by volcanoes and earthquakes; and each layering cycle required vast amounts of time to complete.

The significance of Hutton’s insight, to which he gave the jawbreaker name of uniformitarianism, cannot be overstated. However, he couldn’t challenge Ussher’s 6,000 year dogma because he provided no alternative to it. He was certain that 6,000 years was much too short a time span for any weathering cycle to be completed, but in the late 18th century there was no way to accurately measure geological eras. That would have to wait another thirty-five years until Sir Charles Lyell, a far more methodical British analyst and researcher, could firmly establish uniformitarianism as the basis of modern geology.

Lyell took Hutton’s work and ran with it, creating a three-volume series called Principles Of Geology (1830-1833) that convincingly provided the time lines and time frames Hutton lacked. Bishop Ussher’s 6,000 year dogma still held complete sway with ecclesiastics everywhere, but the world’s burgeoning ranks of scientists could see that Hutton and now Lyell were correct; the earth had to be millions of years old rather than 6,000. But how to convince the still largely uneducated masses of Ussher’s fallacy? Like Hutton before him, Lyell and his supporters could not break through the dense wall of ignorance being perpetuated by religious dogma. However, they had knocked several gaping cracks in it, so when Charles Darwin came along in another thirty years (1859), the wall was ready to begin crumbling with an echo that reverberates to this day.

Darwin was strongly influenced by Lyell, who published the first of his geology tomes while Darwin was at Cambridge completing his last year of theological training (he only studied nature as an avocation). He took the first volume of the trilogy on his fateful voyage aboard the H.M.S. Beagle and devoured it along the way. Masterfully written and persuasively argued, it made such an impression on the 22-year-old that in later life he said, "I really think my books come half out of Lyell’s brain. I see through his eyes." So between Lyell’s genius and his grandfather Erasmus’ unconventional views about nature instilled during his childhood, young Charles set sail toward his destiny with a blueprint of his revolutionary theory in mind and a tool to build it in his hands.

Without saying it outright, Darwin’s bottom line was that life’s myriad forms managed their own existence from start to finish without divine help. This did not take God entirely out of the equation, but it did remove His influence on a day-to-day basis. The irony is that Charles Darwin did his work reluctantly, being a devout man who had trained to become a minister. Nonetheless, the schism he created between evolution (a term he never used; his choice was natural selection) and God was the battering ram that breached the forbidding wall of dogmatic ignorance that had stood for thousands of years.

Though breached, that wall did not come down entirely. Instead, an ideological war erupted on both sides of what remained of it, pitting Darwinists against Creationists in intellectual bloodletting that eventually forced some of the wounded to seek relief in compromise. Both sides might be content, they suggested, if God could be acknowledged as the initiator of all life, followed by a "hands-off" policy thereafter to let nature take its evolutionary course. All well and good. But instead, both sides adopted a winner-take-all strategy, unwilling to make even marginal concessions to the other side’s point of view.

Allowing no room for compromise left both sides open to continuous attack, and the salvos they exchanged were fierce and relentless. James Hutton and Charles Lyell had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the earth was immensely older than 6,000 years, yet they and their supporters had been overwhelmed by the oppressive power of ecclesiastic influence. Now, however, Darwin’s arguments supporting gradual changes over equally vast amounts of time tipped the scales in favor of science. Public opinion began to shift. The uniform rejection of old became tentative acceptance at an ever-increasing rate.

This alarming turn of events forced all but the most ardent Creationists to seek ways to appease their critics, to put themselves back in the driver’s seat of public opinion. Bishop Ussher’s unyielding time line of 6,000 years was gradually coming to symbolize their willful disdain of reality, like a chain draped around their necks, drowning them as the tide of understanding shifted the sand beneath their feet. They began to modify their insistence that God had created everything in the universe exactly as recounted in the Bible. They could suddenly see the wisdom of granting Him the latitude to accomplish His miracles in six eras of unspecified length rather than in six literal days.

Of course, Creationists did more than hit the reverse pedal on their sputtering juggernaut. The brightest of them dug deep into Darwin’s emerging theory to discover holes nearly equal to the ones scientists were exposing in religious dogma. In 1873, only fourteen years after The Origin Of Species, geologist J.W. Dawson, chancellor of McGill University in Montreal, published The Story Of The Earth And Man, which was every bit as well written and as carefully argued as Darwin’s masterpiece. In it Dawson pointed out that Darwin and his followers were promoting a theory based on three fallacious "gaps" in reasoning that could not be reconciled with the knowledge of their era. What is so telling about Dawson’s three fallacies is that they remain unchanged to this day.

The first fallacy is that life can spontaneously animate from organic material. In 1873 Dawson complained that "the men who evolve all things from physical forces do not yet know how these forces can produce the phenomenon of life even in its humblest forms." He added that "in every case heretofore, the effort (to create animate life) has proved vain." After 127 years of heavily subsidized effort by scientists all over the world to create even the most basic rudiments of life, they are still batting an embarrassing zero. In any other scientific endeavor, reason would dictate it is time to call in the dogs and water down the fire. But when it comes to Darwinian logic, as Dawson noted in 1873, "here also we are required to admit as a general principle what is contrary to experience."

Dawson’s second fallacy was the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. "These are necessarily the converse of each other, the one deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. Only in reproduction or decay does the plant simulate the action of the animal, and the animal never in its simplest forms assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can, I believe, be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance." And thus it remains today. If life did evolve as Darwinists claim, it would have had to bridge the gap between plant and animal life at least once, and more likely innumerable times. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, science is again batting zero.

The third gap in the knowledge of 1873 was "that between any species of animal or plant and any other species. It is this gap, and this only, which Darwin undertook to fill up by his great work on the origin of species; but, notwithstanding the immense amount of material thus expended, it yawns as wide as ever, since it must be admitted that no case has been ascertained in which individuals of one species have transgressed the limits between it and other species." Here, too, despite a ceaseless din of scientific protests to the contrary, there remains not a single unquestioned example of one species evolving entirely—not just partially—into another distinct and separate species.

To be fair, some of today’s best-known geneticists and naturalists have broken ranks and acknowledged that what Dawson complained about in 1873 remains true today. Thomas H. Morgan, who won a Nobel Prize for work on heredity, wrote that "Within the period of human history, we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another if we apply the most rigid and extreme tests used to distinguish wild species." Colin Patterson, director of the British Museum of Natural History, has stated that "No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it." And these are by no means extraordinary disclosures. Every scientist in related fields is well aware of it, but shamefully few have the nerve to address it openly.

By the time Darwin died, in 1882, one of his most zealous supporters, German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, had produced a series of drawings that showed the developing embryos of various mammals (rabbit, pig, chimp, man) were virtually identical until well into their gestation. This had been a great comfort to Darwin in his old age, but by 1915 it was clear that Haeckel had forged the drawings. Nonetheless, they served Darwinists so well that Haeckel’s forgery conviction at the University of Jena, where he taught, was conveniently overlooked, and his drawings can still be found in modern texts supporting evolution. In fact, any reader of this article who was taught evolution in school will very likely have seen Haeckel’s drawings in textbooks and been assured they were legitimate.

A more widely known fraudulent attempt to support Darwin’s flagging theory was England’s famous Piltdown Man hoax of 1912, which was an ancient human skull found in conjunction with a modern orangutan’s lower jaw that had been doctored (its teeth filed down to look more human) and aged to match the look of the skull. This was much more important than Haeckel’s fraud because it provided the desperately sought "missing link" between humans and their proposed ape-like ancestors.

Nearly all of England’s evolutionary top guns swung in behind the fraud, and their colleagues worldwide joined them with such zeal that it took 40 years to expose it for what it was. However, the damage it caused to the search for truth had already been done. The world became so convinced that Darwinian evolution was true and correct, it was just a matter of time before Creationists would draw a line in the dirt and call for a last great battle to decide the issue once and for all. That battle did come, to an obscure American hamlet called Dayton, Tennessee, 75 years ago (July, 1925).

The "Monkey Trial," as H.L. Mencken dubbed it, revolved around John Scopes, a 24-year-old gym teacher and football coach who once substituted for the regular biology teacher in Dayton’s high school. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chose him as its point man because he vocally disagreed with a new Tennessee law that banned the teaching of evolution instead of, or alongside, the Biblical account of creation. He also was unmarried, incurring no risk to a family by allowing himself to be prosecuted.

Though now one of many so-called "trials of the century," this one drew 200 reporters from 2,000 newspapers across the country and the world. It has since generated hundreds of books, plays, television movies, and feature films. In October, 1999, George magazine chose it the fourth most important event of the 20th century. Yet historian Garry Wills has astutely called it "a nontrial over a nonlaw with a nondefendant backed by nonsupporters. Its most profound moment involved nontestimony by a nonexpert, followed by a nondefeat." Without question it can stand alongside the O.J. Simpson debacle as a world-class black eye for the American legal system.

All during the trial Clarence Darrow, a staunch Darwinist and Scopes’ lawyer, tangled with William Jennings Bryan, an equally staunch Creationist who represented the State of Tennessee. Both were outstanding advocates and renowned orators, and each was certain he could outtalk the other and convince the world of the rightness of his vision of creation. However, Darrow’s rapier wit shredded Bryan’s assertions that the Bible was a literal record of God’s sacrosanct word. Bryan won from a legal standpoint because the issue in question was whether Scopes had defied his state’s law, which he admitted all along in order to get the trial arranged in the first place. Scopes was convicted and fined $100, which was later overturned on a technicality, so in the end he was vindicated.

More than anything else, the Monkey Trial was staged to settle the Darwinism-Creationism debate once and for all by pitting the most eloquent defender of each in a mouth-to-mouth duel on a world stage that no one could ignore. And when the dust had settled it was clear the rolling tide of history would not be turned. The mounting support for Darwinism crested in a tsunami of doubt—and even ridicule—that crashed down on Creationists everywhere, sweeping them from the dominant positions they had enjoyed for centuries, into the social and political backwaters they endured for decades.

Though clearly knocked down by the Darrow/Scopes haymaker, the Creationists were far from out. They lowered their profile and became relatively inactive through the Depression and the years of World War II, waiting until society stabilized in the 1950’s. Then they rallied their troops and resumed attacking educational systems, where young minds were being indoctrinated with Darwinist dogma. And this time they did it right. Instead of wasting effort and money lobbying state legislatures, they moved out into the heartland and focused on local school boards, insisting belief in evolution was costing America its faith in God and religion, and destroying morality and traditional family life.

When the social eruptions of the 1960’s appeared, Creationists were quick to say "We told you so!" They blamed the teaching of "Godless evolution" as a primary cause, demanding that religion be put back in schools as a quick way to return to "the good old days." At the same time, they hit upon their most brilliant tactic yet: formally changing their basic tenet from "Biblical Creationism" to "Creation Science." Then, in an equally brilliant stroke, they shifted from lobbying school boards to getting themselves elected to them. Predictably, they enjoyed great success in the Bible Belt girdling the Deep South.

Apart from making most real scientists gag every time they hear it, "Creation Science" provided Creationists with the cachet of authority they had been seeking—and needing—since Darwin so thoroughly sandbagged them. And, it has been remarkably effective in shifting public opinion away from the scientific position. Gallup Polls taken in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999 show the percentage of Americans who believed "God created human beings in their present form at one time within the past 10,000 years" was 44%, 47%, 44%, and 47% respectively. In a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll asking people what they thought about human origins, 15% said they accepted Darwinian evolution, 50% believed the Biblical account, and 26% felt there was truth on both sides. The most perceptive group might well have been the 9% who said they were not sure.

One could argue that those numbers are more of a comment on America’s failing educational system than on the effectiveness of Creationist strategies. But in any case, the Creationist cacophony reached a fever pitch in August of last year, when the Kansas State Board of Education voted by a 6 to 4 margin to eliminate from the state’s high school curricula the teaching of not only biological evolution, which received virtually all media focus, but also of geology’s "Old Earth" theories, and of cosmology’s "Big Bang" of universal creation. The Kansas School Board went after science across the board.

That vote has been by far the high point of the modern Creationist offensive, but courts are still loath to accept any comparison between so-called "Creation" science and what is considered "real" science. In 1981 Arkansas and Louisiana passed laws requiring that Creationism be taught in public schools. In 1982 a U.S. District Court declared the Arkansas law unconstitutional. In 1987 the Louisiana case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled Creationism was essentially a religious explanation of life’s origins and therefore favored one religion (Christianity) over others (Islam, Hindu, etc.).

As usual, after the 1987 defeat the Creationists went back to the drawing board and devised yet another shrewd strategy, which has carried them through the 1990’s and into this new millennium. They have transformed "Creation Science" into theories they call "Sudden Appearance" outside the Bible Belt, or "Intelligent Design" within it. Both versions carefully avoid referring to God by name or to specific aspects of religion, but they strongly focus on the Achilles heel of Darwinism, which is that all species thus far discovered in the fossil record appear suddenly, whole and complete, males and females, leaving no plausible way they could have evolved by Darwinian gradualism.

Fortunately for Darwinists, the legal protection provided by the Supreme Court currently trumps the Achilles heel their rivals keep pointing out. But that tide is running and running strong. Eventually it will turn on them the way the tide of ignorance turned on Creationists when Darwin appeared, and then again at the Monkey Trial. But as long as its legal protection remains intact, Darwinist dogma is in no imminent danger of being confronted with Creationist dogma in the nation’s classrooms. In fact, all this could soon be moot because many school districts have responded to the pressures being applied to them by refusing to teach either viewpoint, which will leave a large and serious hole in the educational background of our next generation of students.

Despite the extreme volatility of these issues, and the immediate rancor received after aligning with the "wrong" side in someone else’s view, any objective analysis will conclude that both Darwinists and Creationists are wrong to a significant degree. Indeed, how could it be otherwise when each can shoot such gaping holes in the other? If either side was as correct as, say, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which—apart from occasional dissonance with quantum mechanics—has faced no serious challenge since Einstein revealed it to an awestruck world in 1915, there would be no issues to debate: one side would be declared right, the other would be wrong, and that would be that.

We all know "right" when we see it, just as we all should know "wrong." Anyone without a vested interest should be willing to accept that the earth is vastly older than 6,000 years. Likewise, despite widespread proof of the noticeable changes in body parts called for by microevolution, there is no clearly definitive evidence for the innumerable species-into-higher-species transformations required by macroevolution. If Charles Darwin were alive today and could be presented with the facts that have accumulated since his death, even he would have to admit his theory has turned out wrong.

Let us make the assertion, then, that both Darwinists and Creationists are wrong to such a degree that their respective theories are ripe for overthrow. It is simply a matter of time and circumstance before one or another piece of evidence appears that is so clear in its particulars and so overwhelming in its validity, both sides will have no choice but to lay down their bullhorns and laptops and slink off into history’s dustbin, where so many other similarly bankrupt theories have gone before them. But until that happens, what about those who would choose to explore more objective and possibly more accurate scenarios for the creation of life itself and human life in particular?

Because of their all-out, do-or-die strategies, Darwinists and Creationists stand at opposite ends of a very wide intellectual spectrum, which leaves a huge swath of middle ground available to anyone with the courage to explore it. Moreover, the signposts along that middle ground are numerous and surprisingly easy to negotiate. All that’s required is a willingness to see with open eyes and to perceive with an open mind.

The basic Darwinist position regarding how life began is called "spontaneous animation," which J.W. Dawson complained about back in 1873. It is the idea that life somehow springs into existence suddenly, all by itself, when proper mixtures of organic and inorganic compounds are placed into proximity and allowed to percolate their way across the immensely deep chasm between non-life and life. Based on everything known about the technical aspects of that process—from 1873 until now—it is quite safe to say spontaneous animation doesn’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance of enduring.

Ignore the howls of protest echoing from far off to our right. Here on the middle ground reality rules, and reality says there is simply no way even the simplest life form—say, a sub-virus-sized microbe utilizing only a handful of RNA/DNA components—could have pulled itself together from any conceivable brew of chemical compounds and started functioning as a living entity. To cite just one reason, no laboratory has ever found a way to coax lipids into forming themselves into a functional cell membrane, which is essential for encasing any living microbe. Then there is permeability, which would also have to be a part of the mix so nutrients could be taken into the cell and wastes could be expelled.

Fred Hoyle, a brilliant English astronomer and mathematician, once offered what has become the most cogent analogy for this process. He said it would be comparable to "a tornado striking a junkyard and assembling a jetliner from the materials therein." This is because the complexity evident at even the tiniest level of life is mind boggling beyond belief. In short, it could not and did not happen, and anyone insisting otherwise is simply wrong, misguided, or terrified of dealing with what its loss means to their world view.

So, if spontaneous animation is simply not possible, how does life come into existence? How can it be? Here we must call on an old friend, Sherlock Holmes, who was fond of saying that in any quest for truth one should first eliminate whatever is flatly impossible. Whatever remains, however unlikely, will be the truth. With spontaneous animation eliminated, that leaves only one other viable alternative: intervention at some level by some entity or entities. (Ignore the rousing cheers erupting far to our left.)

Before anyone in our group of middle-ground explorers goes jogging off toward those would-be winners, understand that "entity or entities" does not mean "God" in the anthropomorphic sense espoused by Creationists. It means some aspect or aspects of our present reality that we do not officially acknowledge—yet—but which nonetheless exist and act on us, and interact with us, in ways we are only just beginning to understand.

As of today, all human beings are bound by three dimensions. We are born into them, we live in them, and we die in them. During our lives we struggle to fit all of our personal experiences into them. Some of us, however, undergo experiences or receive insights which indicate other levels of reality might exist. These don’t manifest in our usual corporeal (body) sense, but in purely ethereal forms that nonetheless have enough substance to make them perceivable by those locked into the three known dimensions.

For as woo-woo metaphysical as that might seem at first glimpse, please take a closer look. There is a slowly emerging branch of "new" science which deals with these other dimensions. Called hyperdimensional physics, it concerns itself with devising and executing experiments that—however briefly—provide glimpses into these other realms of reality. It is not greatly different from the earliest days of Einstein’s time-and-motion studies, when he was trying to break the 200-year-old academic straitjacket imposed by Newtonian physics. Now Einstein’s revolutionary physics has become the straitjacket, and hyperdimensional physics will eventually become the means to break out of it and move humanity to a much higher level of awareness and understanding of true reality.

Detailing these experiments is grist for another mill, but suffice to say that string theorists are leading the charge. (Their subatomic "theory of everything" requires ten or more new dimensions in order to be considered valid.) In due course they and others will progress from the barest glimpses being obtained at present to fully opening the doors to those other dimensions. When they do, they are likely to find them populated by the kind of entity or entities discussed earlier, beings who are not necessarily "God" with a capital "G," but rather "gods" with small "g’s." Perhaps, even, the same plural "gods" mentioned in Genesis ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.") But that, too, is grist for another mill. However, it does lead into an analysis of how humanity came to be as it is.

The problem is simple: nobody in any conceivable position of power wants to confront the truth about human origins. No scientist, no politician, no clergyman could hope to preserve his or her authority—at whatever level—after actively coming forward with the truth about this incendiary subject. They have all seen colleagues "disappeared" from their ranks for stepping out of line, so they know retribution is swift and sure.

As noted above, Creationists insist that God (a singular male now, reduced from the genderless plurals of original Biblical text) created man in His own image, after His own likeness. Well, if that’s true, He must have been having a heck of a bad day, because we humans are a poorly designed species. True, we do have highly capable brains, but for some reason we are only allowed to use a relatively small portion of them. (Now we will hear frantic howls of protest from the scientists off to our right, but ignore them. If 100 idiot savants can access 100 different portions of their brains to perform their astounding intellectual feats, then those same portions must be in our brains, too, but our normalcy keeps us from being able to access them. Period.)

Morally we are a terrible mishmash of capacities, capable of evil incarnate at one moment and love incarnate the next, while covering every range of emotion in between. Physically we carry more than 4,000 genetic disorders, with each of us averaging about 50 (some carry many more, some many less). New ones are found on a regular basis. No other species has more than a handful of serious ones, and none which kill 100% of carriers before they can reach maturity and reproduce. We have dozens of those. So how did they get into us? Better yet, how do they stay in us? If they are 100% fatal before reproduction is possible, how could they possibly spread through our entire gene pool?

If we assume God was at His best the day He decided to create us, functioning in His usual infallible mode, that gives Him no legitimate excuse for designing us so poorly. Surely He could have given us no more physical disorders than, say, our nearest genetic relatives, gorillas and chimps. A little albinism never hurt any species, not those two or ours or dozens of others that carry it, so why couldn’t He just leave it at that? What could have been the point of making us much less genetically robust than all the other species we are supposed to be masters of?

There is no point to it, which is my point. It simply didn’t happen that way.

Now, let’s examine the Darwinist dogma that humans descended from primates (chimps and gorillas) by gradually transitioning through a four-million-year-long series of prehumans known as Australopithecines (Lucy, etc.) and early Homos (Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, etc.). Even though Australopithecines undoubtedly walked upright (their kind would have left the famous pair of bipedal tracks at Laetoli, Tanzania, 3.5 million years ago), their skulls are so ape-like as to be ineligible as a possible human ancestor. But let’s assume that somehow they bridged the evolutionary gap between themselves and early Homos, which indeed are in the ballpark of physical comparison with humans.

Notice that in any series of photos showing the skulls of the Homo prehumans, little changes over time except the size of their brains, which increase by leaps of roughly 200 cubic centimeters between species. Every bone in those skulls is much denser and heavier than in humans; they all had missing foreheads; huge brow ridges; large, round eye sockets holding nocturnal (night) vision eyes; wide cheekbones; broad nasal passages beneath noses that had to splay flat across their faces (no uplift of bone to support an off-the-face nose); mouths that extend outward in the prognathous fashion; and no chins.

Each of those features is classic higher primate, and they predominate in the fossil record until only 120,000 years ago, when genuinely human-looking creatures—the Cro-Magnons—appear literally "overnight" (in geological terms), with absolutely everything about them starkly different from their predecessors. In fact, the list of those differences is so lengthy, it is safe to say humans are not even primates! (More howls of outrage from off to our right, but please keep to the middle ground and consider the evidence.)

According to our mitochondrial DNA, humans have existed as a distinct species for only about 200,000 years, give or take several thousand. This creates quite a problem for Darwinists because they contend we are part of the sequence extending back through the Australopithecines at four million years ago. Furthermore, we should follow directly after the Neanderthals, which followed Homo Erectus. But now the Neanderthals, which existed for about 300,000 years and overlapped Cro-Magnons by about 100,000 of those, have provided mitochondrial samples which indicate they are not related closely enough to humans to be direct ancestors. This compounds yet another serious transition problem because human brains are on average 100 cubic centimeters smaller than Neanderthal brains! How might that have happened if we are on a direct ancestral line with them?

Anthropologists are now left with only Homo Erectus as a possible direct ancestor for humans, and Erectus supposedly went extinct 300,000 years ago—100,000 before we appeared. Obviously, something had to give here, and—as in war—truth has been the first casualty. Recently anthropologists started reevaluating Homo Erectus fossils from Indonesia and guess what? They are now finding possible dates as early as 30,000 years ago, well beneath the 120,000 years ago Cro-Magnons first appeared in the fossil record. Such a surprise! However, scientists still have to account for our "sudden" appearance and our wide array of new traits never before seen among primates.

Understand this: humans are not primates! Yes, we do fit the technical definition of having flexible hands and feet with five digits, but beyond that there is no reasonable comparison to make. We don’t have primate bone density (theirs is far more robust than ours) or muscular strength (pound for pound they are 5 to 10 times stronger than we are); but we do have foreheads; minimal brow ridges; small, rectangular-shaped eye sockets holding poor night-vision eyes; narrow nasal passages with noses that protrude off our faces; mouths that are flat rather than prognathous; we have chins; and we are bipedal.

Apart from those skeletal differences, we don’t have primate brains (that is an understatement!), throats (we can’t eat or drink and breathe at the same time; they can); voices (they can make loud calls, but we can modulate them into the tiny pieces of sound that make up words); body covering (they all have pelts of hair from head to toe, thick on the back and lighter on the front; we have no pelt and our thickness pattern is reversed); we cool ourselves by sweating profusely (they tend to pant, though some sweat lightly); we shed tears of emotion (no other primate does); we do not regulate our salt intake (all other primates do); we have a layer of fat of varying thickness attached to the underside of our skin, which primates do not have; that fat layer prevents wounds to our skin from healing as easily as wounds to primate skin; human females have no estrus cycle, as do all primates; but the number one difference between humans and primates is that humans have only 46 chromosomes while all higher primates have 48!

This last fact is the clincher. You can’t lose two entire chromosomes (think how much DNA that is!) from your supposedly "parent" species and somehow end up better. And not just better, a light year better! It defies logic to the point where any reasonable person should be willing to concede that something "special" happened in the case of humans, something well beyond the ordinary processes of life on Earth. And it did. The "missing" chromosomes, it turns out, are not actually missing. The second and third chromosomes in higher primates have somehow been spliced together (there is no other term for it) by an utterly inexplicable—some might call it "miraculous"— technique.

Once again, the only plausible explanation seems to be intervention. But by whom? The same hyperdimensional entity or entities that might have created life in the first place? Not necessarily. Certainly that would have to be considered as a possibility, but humans were probably a breeze to create relative to initiating life and engineering all subsequent forms. That leaves room for three-dimensional assistance. In other words, we could have been created as we are by other three-dimensional beings who for reasons of their own decided to make us "in their own image, after their own likeness."

Accepting such a heretical explanation would certainly go a long way toward resolving these anomalies about humanity: (1) our many inexplicable differences from primates; (2) our all-too-sudden appearance in the fossil record; (3) our much-too-recent speciation; (4) our lack of a clear ancestor species; (5) our astounding number of genetic flaws; and (6) the unmistakable splicing done to our second and third chromosomes. The last two are, not surprisingly, hallmarks of hybridization and genetic manipulation, which is exactly how human origins were accounted for by—get this—the ancient Sumerians! We began this essay with them, and now we will end it with them.

As was noted at the beginning, the Sumerians were Earth’s first great culture, emerging fully-formed from the Stone Age around 6,000 years ago (shades of Bishop Ussher!). They utilized over 100 of the "firsts" we now attribute to a high civilization, among them the first writing (cuneiform), which they inscribed on clay tablets that were fired in kilns (another first) into stone. Thousands of those tablets have survived, and in many of them the Sumerians describe a period wherein hundreds of three-dimensional "gods" (with a small "g") came to Earth from another planet orbiting in a long clockwise ellipse around the Sun rather than in a counterclockwise circle like the other planets.

While on Earth, those vastly superior beings decided to create for themselves a group of slaves and servants they would call Adamu. It was written in stone over 4,000 years ago (1,500 years before the Old Testament) that those "gods" agreed to "make the Adamu in our own image, after our own likeness." They did it by processes that sound remarkably like genetic engineering, in vitro fertilization, and hybridization. Perhaps most remarkable of all, they said they did it around 200,000 years ago, precisely when our mitochondrial DNA—against all expectations—says we originate as a species!

When the task of creating the Adamu was complete, the first of them were put to work in the Lower World of deep, hot mineshafts in southern Africa, where—not to put too fine a point on it—nearly every modern authority agrees that humankind originated. Eventually a surplus of slaves and servants became available, so that group was sent to work in the lush Upper World home of our alleged creators, which they called the E.Din ("home of the righteous ones") located in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley of modern Iraq.

All went well until the end of the last Ice Age, around 15,000 years ago, when the gods realized the immense icecap covering Antarctica was rapidly melting, and at some point in the future its massive edges would drop into the surrounding oceans and cause gigantic tidal waves to sweep across Earth’s lowlands, where their cities were. Because all Adamu could not be saved, several of the best were chosen to survive in a specially constructed boat able to withstand the immense tsunamis that were certain to strike.

When the time came, the gods boarded their spacecraft and lifted off into the heavens, from where they watched the devastation below and were shocked by the level of destruction. But when the waters receded enough for them to come down and land in the Zagros Mountain highlands, above the now mud- and sludge-covered E.Din valley, they joined the surviving Adamu to begin rebuilding their decimated civilization.

Again, not to put too fine a point on it, but most scholars now agree that modern civilization (settlements, farming, etc.) inexplicably began around 12,000 years ago in the Zagros Mountain highlands, where settlements would be extraordinarily difficult to build and maintain, and where terrace farming in poorly watered, sparse mountain soil (not to mention arid weather) would be vastly more demanding than in any fertile, well-watered lowlands. Yet the same scholars do not accept that there was any kind of worldwide flood event which may have caused a prior civilization to have to reboot itself in dry highlands.

In general, modern scholars scoff at all similar correlations to the Sumerian texts, considering them nothing more than an extended series of coincidences. They insist the Sumerians were merely being "overly creative" while forming incredibly sophisticated, richly detailed "myths." After all, the myriad wondrous things they described over four thousand years ago simply could not be an accurate record of their "primitive" reality.

Or could it?…...

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Indus Civilization

...INDUS CIVILIZATION Indus civilization, also called Indus valley civilization or Harappa civilization, the earliest known urban culture of the Indian subcontinent. It was first identified in 1921 at Harappa in the Punjab region and then in 1922 at Mohenjo-Daro (Mohenjo-Daro), near the Indus River in the Sindh (Sind) region, now both in Pakistan. Subsequently, vestiges of the civilization were found as far apart as Sutkagen Dor, near the shore of the Arabian Sea 300 miles (480 km) west of Karachi, also in Pakistan, and Rupnagar, in India, at the foot of the Shimla Hills 1,000 miles (1,600 km) to the northeast. Later exploration established its existence southward down the west coast of India as far as the Gulf of Khambhat (Cambay), 500 miles (800 km) southeast of Karachi, and as far east as the Yamuna (Jumna) River basin, 30 miles (50 km) north of Delhi. It is thus decidedly the most extensive of the world’s three earliest civilizations; the other two are those of Mesopotamia and Egypt, both of which began somewhat before it. The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) located in the western region of South Asia, and spread over what is now Pakistan, northwest India, and eastern Afghanistan. Flourishing in the Indus River basin, the civilization extended east into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley and the upper reaches Ganges-Yamuna Doab, it extended west to the Makran coast of Baluchistan and north to......

Words: 1401 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Civilization and Humanities

...Since the beginning of its definition, the term “civilization” has been defined in numerous ways. It is nearly synonymous with the definition of culture (Wei, 2011, p. 1), perhaps leaving one in dismay to a conclusive definition and definite distinction between them. I personally believe civilizations are collectively defined through the study of humanities, as a progressive society of creative, intellectual, social and material development of a variety of different people. These studies are an essential way of understanding how we define civilization while bringing an understanding to the history and the marvels before our time. Having said that, the objective of this discussion is to distinctively define the controversial term “civilization” and elaborate its relation to the humanities. In order to accurately define civilization it is essential to compare many numerous similarities to the word culture and draw out distinct differences. For example, they both take into aspect the way of life of a certain group of people. These include customs, traditional beliefs, habits, languages etc. (Eagleton, 2000). One may conclude that they are one in the same. However, civilization is attributed to a group of people of a much larger scale. Beginning as a product of culture, through evolution these customs, traditions, beliefs, etc. all collaborated on a more populous scale, thus developing a more advanced civilization. In the same sense, a culture being notably more discreet is......

Words: 715 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Civilization

...BUkleja Date 2013-01-03 Civilization Today we look at the future and wonder? Have you ever wondered about the past? We will discuss were we came from in forms of region, religion, as well as artistic expression. If you grew up in North America with in the last thirty years there are things that you would automatically know, such as baseball, hotdogs, rock stars, J.F.K. and Martin Luther King. Why would you know these things? Well first Hot dogs no matter where you came from in the country you had a hotdog either at a family barbeque, quick meal on the go or a sporting event. The idea of such things like sporting events like Baseball and Football pro and college alike, in some areas these can be as inspirational as religion. It may seem like a cliché as the underdog stories like “Rudy”, League of their own or Major League. What do all these things have in common? They each talk of the man or men even women doing what might seem as impossible at the time but what might be need at that time. They each bring hope and inspiration to their characters. Sporting events aren’t the only source of modern day inspiration every now and then we come across great men and women that will inspire or motivate a generation some good and some bad. Let’s us look back at George Washington, Harriet Tubman, Hitler, Martin Luther King and Obama. Each has their place in history President Washington some say the greatest president of all time, Harriet Tubman the bravest women of all time...

Words: 977 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Contributions of Greek Civilization to Western Civilization

...Alejandra Fraguada Ancient & Medieval Western Civilization Contributions of Greek Civilization to Western Civilization. Ancient Greeks made many influential contributions to western civilization such as in the areas of philosophy, art and architecture, math and science. These contributions, which are also the achievements of ancient Greece, include certain things in the areas of philosophy, art, architecture, math and science. The ancient Greeks were a remarkable civilization in that they have made all these contributions and achievements while simultaneously fighting two wars, the Peloponnesian wars and the Persian wars. Luckily for western civilization, Greece carried on through these hardships and managed to achieve one thing after another, ultimately contributing a vast amount to western civilization. In the area of philosophy, Greece had made many influential contributions to western civilization. Greek philosophers were great thinkers who were determined to seek truth to a certain subject or question no matter where it led them. Three of the most famous philosophers in Greek history include Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato. Socrates, who lived from around 470 to 399 B.C., believed that life was not worth living unless it was examined and the truth about life was sought out. He also believed that there had to be certain standards for justice and punishment. In order to solve problems in life, Socrates invented a method for solving these problems called......

Words: 825 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Civilization

...* Civilization Essay * Civilization is the product of the inner human consciousness that projects itself collectively within society. These projections are what we interact with everyday within our own society. These projections are based on the natural interpretation of their respective civilization or culture and the basic walks of life that consume it. For example the existence of laws, arts, religion, and government are the meat and potatoes of civilization without these essential elements humans would be reduced animals that eat to live and breed without leaving a mark or legacy of his own. The fact that humans even want to leave legacy is interweaved into building blocks of civilization. As defined by dictionary.com civilization is an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached. (Dictonary.com) Are humans defined by their civilizations acceptance of their cultural ideologies? How do these ideologies play out in society and what role do these ideologies play in civilization? * The answer is the humanities rule our existence. Humanities because it is the outward expression of our selves our ideas and culture. Humanities capture the human spirit, soul, and inner thoughts and express them in three different ways through visual art, performing art, and literary art. These arts impress upon our society to shape our ideas of the world around us, and how we fit into the grand scheme of......

Words: 489 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Civilization

...The stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced. Civilization is a term used in many different ways. It can be defined as; people who eat the same kind of foods, People who live together, people who speak the same language, and so on. Yet each way that it is defined relates towards the same topic; Humans and their existence on the planet. Civilization is known greatly as a group of humans or animals that live generally together and practice the same habits. Civilization, according to some historians, first came into play in the year 3000 BCE. These historians look at civilization as people who have the same dietary needs and habits, which practice these habits regularly in order to survive. A couple of years before 3000 BCE, the world went through what historians call the Agricultural revolution. They feel that because of this revolution, groups of people started to come together to practice their farming ways. Because of all the new food supplies that came about through the agricultural revolution, the population started to grow into little villages, which eventually turned into city states. This caused people to look further beyond their little villages in search of more land to hold their growing populations. This caused groups of people to break off and form their own little towns or civilizations. After a while the people learned that by being in different places their farming encountered different weather and growing conditions.......

Words: 262 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Pharonic Civilization

...Pharaonic Civilization Civilization of the ancient Egyptians is the civilization that Egypt lived under the pharaohs with 30 different families. The pharaohs began ruling Egypt in 3000 B.C., they considered themselves to be living gods who ruled with absolute power ("Pharaohs," 2010). The ancient Egyptian excelled in building. They built pyramids as testimony of their greatness. Also, they left a significant cultural momentum in science, art of embalming and symbols for gods and goddesses they believed in. The Egyptian Pyramids The pharaohs believed that death on the earth was just the start of a journey to the next world, and all the evidence referred to that the pharaohs worked in their life preparing for the afterlife. As so, they built the pyramids to be their tombs, to keep their jewelries and their bodies to take it with them to the other life. Booth (2010) stated that "it was believed that if the discarded body were preserved, it would remain a focus for the spirit that had left it, exerting an attraction that pulled it down to earth" (para.1). Pyramids of El-Giza There are many pyramids have found in Egypt, but the most famous three are those which found in El-Giza, couple hundred meters south from Cairo. The three pyramids are Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. Khufu pyramid also known as the Great Pyramid is considered as the tallest pyramids and the oldest wonder of the Seven Wonders of the World. The Great Pyramid needs more than 10.000 laborers working in......

Words: 770 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Civilization

...1 Civilization What is meant by the term “Civilization” Kenneth Dutton EG 362 Humanities 2 Civilization What is meant by the term “Civilization” and how we characterize it? What role do the humanities play in this definition? The definition of civilization is an advance state of human society that shows high levels of culture, science, industry and the government have been reached. Specifically the state of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained. Humanities by definition is the documentation of human being through stories, paintings, religion and beliefs. The stories around the campfire, family heirlooms that come with a story, the journaling of our experiences and lives all become a form of humanities that is passed on to the next civilization after it. Humanities is shown through art and paintings, but does not stop there. The paintings not only tell a story in picture, but document the evolvement in skill of art with techniques and tools. The documentation of beliefs allowing for the development of religion organized societies, giving order or sense of normalcy in the burial of bodies and or praying to a god. In religion art made its presence through sculptures used in religious content. These definitions of humanities were...

Words: 364 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Markers of Civilization

...All civilizations have a markers like a type of government, political structure, religion, and a system of writing in common. I will be discussing a few of these in relation to ancient Egypt and ancient Persia. Two of the key markers of civilization are writing and religion. Ancient Egyptians used three different types of writing, they were: hieroglyphics, hieratic, and demotic. The latter two are essentially cursive derivatives of the hieroglyphic style. The ancient Egyptians called your script mdju netjer, or “words the god.” Hieroglyphs were the earliest form of the Egyptian script. Originally hieroglyphs used to write different kinds of texts on different surfaces. As hieratic developed, hieroglyphic scripts became confined to religious and monumental usage. Hieratic is an adaptation of the hieroglyphs script. The signs were simplified to make their writing quicker. The other style of writing is called demotic. The word demotic means “popular scripts.” Demotic was more commercially used than hieratic or hieroglyphic scripts and it was a more cursive form of hieroglyphics or hieratic In ancient Egypt the religion that was practiced there was a polytheistic one. The Egyptians had many gods that they worshiped in temples that they built. Some of these gods they combined into one god but not in a monotheistic way. Some of the gods that they worshiped are Osiris, Isis, Horus, Anubis, and Ra. Pharaohs were also believed to be gods but only when they took the throne......

Words: 444 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Civilization

...Civilization – A Definition What do ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform writing tablets, Egyptian pyramids of Giza, inscribed oracle bones from ancient Chinese divine rituals, and automobiles have in common? Each of these objects represents a bi-product of an ancient or modern civilization. However, many anthropologists, historians, theorists and sociologists alike disagree with regard to how the term civilization should be defined. According to sociologist Robert Park, “Civilization […] is the result of man’s effort to use the resources of his environment in order to change nature and, where possible, make it less raw, more comfortable and less difficult to endure” (Park, 132). He reasons that civilization should be measured by man’s degree of conquest over nature (133). Historian and author Felipe Fernández-Armesto describes civilization as both a “process of collective self-differentiation from a world characterized […] as barbaric or savage or primitive” and a stage reached when a particular society reaches its “climax” (Fernández-Armesto, 13). While peace activist Scott Nearing believed civilization to be the “most comprehensive, extensive and inclusive life pattern achieved by terrestrial humanity,” the philosopher and revolutionary Karl Marx believed that the beginning of civilization symbolized the beginning of oppression (Nearing, 54). In the simplest sense, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “to civilize” as “to bring out of a state of barbarism, to......

Words: 1508 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Clash of the Civilizations

...The definition of a civilization according to Huntington is a cultural entity. It is the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined by common elements such as: language, history, religion, customs, institutions and the self identification of people. Civilizations may include a large number of people or a very small number of people. They may include several Nation States or only one. They can blend or overlap and even include sub civilizations. Huntington's definition of a civilization matches up well with what we have learned in class. Civilization's are complex and civilizations are dynamic. They rise and fall, and divide and merge. They have many characteristics which include: urban revolution, distinct religious culture, new political and military structures such as bureaucracy, new social structures based on political power, the development of writing and the development of war complexity in material sense. Huntington divided the world into seven other civilizations, Western, Latin American, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu and Slavic-Orthodox. He said that Africa was only a possible civilization. Huntington said that “people's religious and cultural identities will be the main source of conflict in the post- cold war world” and there will be conflict between Western Civilizations and Islamic Civilizations because of seven main......

Words: 579 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Civilization

...Civilization Civilization is a hard word to explain, in one word or in a sentence, because it depends on how the society is built and there are many different aspects. Civilization comes from the word civis, which comes from Latin, and means citizen of a city. When you take a look in the mirror, have you ever thought about that you belong to a certain identical group and that your language or culture even could be some of your personality behaviors are a sign of the particular civilization? What is civilization? And how is Civilization defined? According to the dictionary “Civilization” means a society, its culture and way of living life. The definition of civilization refers to a society or it can be group of people or the process of achieving a higher state of social development. When we look at R.Cobb´s drawing about civilization, we see these two mason where some people are blocked inside them both, those peoples are exactly the same but they have created too parts of different civilization and one of the group consider the other group to be “mentally ill” and reverse. A example could be the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been going on for 65 years. The new born state took its place back in May 1948. They got mandates for Britain, to occupate the county of the Palestinians. They performed ethnic cleansing, which resulted in millions of refugees of Palestinians in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Then they came up with the apartheid politics, which resulted in a wall...

Words: 320 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Civilization

...Suzette Wright World Civilization II Jill Walsh July 14, 2013 The role of women in today’s society has changed significantly from the modern age. There will always be different traits of each gender that can’t be duplicated by the opposite gender. Many families have tried to make the responsibility roles more equal amongst the adult male and female in the house hold. In today’s society the women is still treated un equal, less human rights than a man and the American culture still tends to believe that a women can’t do a job that a man can. In the modern age, the women were expected to raise the children, keep the house cleaned and have dinner ready when the man gets home at the end of the day. Families were not able to pay for the expense of child care so the mother stayed home with the children. Many of the children were also home taught because school was too expensive or too far for the family to travel to. The man in the house hold tried to do some hunting and they grew their own crops to cut down on the cost of food. Times started to change and families could barely get by so it became worthwhile for the female to try and find a way to help out the family financial as well. When it was time for the women to enter the work field, it was difficult for them at first. Employers had a lot of doubt in the female’s work ability and the quality of the job they were capable of. In the eye of an employer, men are seen to be a strong......

Words: 2208 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

African Civilizations

...The idea that Africans have contributed little to world civilization is one which many in the West have for a long time assumed and taken for granted. Thanks in part to depictions of Africa which rarely extend past civil wars, famine and the primitive; information about Africa’s past advances and accomplishments have continued to remain obscure and little known. Since first contact between Europe and Africa the history of Africa has been fundamentally dominated by the way Europeans have portrayed themselves in relationship to that continent. So that most of what we read and see about Africa tends to say -- either directly or indirectly -- more about the history of European colonialism and its biases toward Africa than it does about the real Africa and its people (see Ahmad, 1987). The majority of people today of all backgrounds, including those of African ancestry, tend to know little about Africa and its history outside of the transatlantic slave trade and perhaps colonialism. While even in these instances knowledge about these events can be at times, limited. The African continent is too often conceived of as one with no legitimate history before contact with Europeans. Formal anthropological research is now showing that this notion could not be further from the truth. In the bible Ham's sons are believed to have fathered the peoples of Africa. Of Ham's four sons, Canaan, fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites and Phut the......

Words: 1957 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Acient Civilization

...The ancient Chinese civilization—one of the world's earliest—flourished in the fertile basin of the Yellow River in the North China Plain.[18] China's political system was based on hereditary monarchies, known as dynasties, beginning with the semi-mythological Xia of the Yellow River basin (approx. 2000 BC) and ending with the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1912. Since 221 BC, when the Qin Dynasty first conquered several states to form a Chinese empire, the country has fractured and been reformed numerous times. The Republic of China (ROC), founded in 1912 after the overthrow of the Qing dynasty, ruled the Chinese mainland until 1949. In the 1946–1949 phase of the Chinese Civil War, the Chinese Communists defeated the Chinese Nationalists (Kuomintang) on the mainland and established the People's Republic of China in Beijing on 1 October 1949. The Kuomintang relocated the ROC government to Taiwan, establishing its capital in Taipei. The ROC's jurisdiction is now limited to Taiwan and several outlying islands, including Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. Since 1949, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (now widely known as "Taiwan") have remained in dispute over the sovereignty of China and the political status of Taiwan, mutually claiming each other's territory and competing for international diplomatic recognition. In 1971, the PRC gained admission to United Nations and took the Chinese seat as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. China is also a member of...

Words: 441 - Pages: 2