Christian coverage of the discovery of the ancient hominid has been sad and
Family in Focus wrote:
"Anthropologists have unearthed an ancient skull in the African nation of
Chad that has a puzzling mix of ancient and modern features. The discovery
is called the most important find in memory, partly because it is so very
old. Interestingly, it is causing evolutionists to question some of the long
held tenets of their theory."
"The evidence for human evolution is relatively thin, and it's merely
assumed that humans have evolved because evolution is accepted already,"
With the rise of genetic science, he said evolutionists also are scrambling
to explain how the massive amount of information found in DNA evolved. He
said such holes in Darwinism leave an open door for the theory of
"We know how information is produced," Edwards said. "It's produced via
intelligent agency. The Darwinists do not know how it's produced via natural
mechanism and they don't have a mechanism. We've got an answer and
essentially they don't."
The first excerpt which is the lead paragraph makes it sound like
evolutionists are questioning the very foundation of evolution--they aren't.
The second paragraph totally messes up what is known about information
theory. Yet, if you say something false long enough everyone believes it.
Answers in Genesis decided to comment without even looking at the original
scientific reports. This illustrates that they have a
Fire-First-Check-Facts-Later approach to apologetics (but in fairness, they
do mention that they need to see the original papers). One wonders however,
why they simply don't buy a subscription to Nature and get the articles on
line. Afterall, they are supposed to be telling christians how to interpret
scientific data yet they lack apparently lack subscriptions to the major
scientific journals. They hypocritically write:
"What we need to remember, however, is that the pronouncements in newspapers
are not dealing with 'raw facts' but with interpretations that are already
seen through culturally-determined 'glasses' which assume that evolution is
a 'fact'. Seen through the 'glasses' of the Bible's real history, Toumai
reveals nothing which would cause even a mildly raised scientific eyebrow."
So they do the very same thing they are criticizing. They are not looking at
the original papers yet at least the original news account did. Why can't
AIG do the same as the newspaper?
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 16 2002 - 11:24:50 EDT