Will Charles Darwin's former residence, Down House, be converted to a Creation Museum?

Question: Will Charles Darwin's former residence, Down House, be converted to a Creation Museum?

In previous articles, we pointed out that biblical creationism is growing and becoming more prominent in London and the UK.  In addition, recently London, England tops a list of cities most visiting the prominent creationist website Creation.com.  Furthermore, recently some staunch atheists became evangelical Christians at a prominent evangelical Christian summer event.

Additionally, we know that creationism is growing in Europe even in places like secular France.  Also, according British scholar Eric Kaufmann, who is a professor at Birkbeck, University of London, current demographic trends, which includes a sub-replacement fertility rate of secularly minded people,  points to an upcoming desecularization of the Western World.

For details see: 

In London 40% of residents are not evolutionists. It is just a matter of time before Darwinism fades away in the UK

London Darwinism is falling down, falling down, falling down. My fair lady!

Biblical Christianity is rising in the UK. Demographic data points to upcoming reversal of secularism in the UK. No English speaking country will be safe for Darwinism
 
London, England tops a list of cities most visiting the prominent creationist website Creation.com  
 
European creationism

Staunch atheists convert to Christianity at UK Soul Survivor events. 25,000 young people attended the three Soul Survivor events this summer in the U.K.    

Global resurgence of religion and the failure of the seculization theory model

Charles Darwin's former residence

The pro-evolution website Wikipedia was founded by an atheist and agnostic.

Wikipedia's article on Down House, Charles Darwin's former residence, declares:

Down House is the former home of the English naturalist Charles Darwin and his family. It was in this house and garden that Darwin worked on his theories of evolution by natural selection which he had conceived in London before moving to Downe.

The house stands next to Luxted Road 0.25 miles (0.40 km) south of Downe, a village 14.25 miles (22.93 km) south east of London's Charing Cross, which was still known as Down when he moved there in 1842. In Darwin's day Downe was a parish in Kent: it subsequently came under Bromley Rural District, and since 1965 is part of the London Borough of Bromley.

It is an irony of history that young earth creationism is alive and growing in London which is very near Down House.  Given that cities often expand due to urban sprawl and that London is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe, it would not surprise me if London become closer to Down House over time.  If anti-Darwinism is alive and growing in London, then evolutionism is not safe anywhere - especially since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists.

An elderly Charles Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.   In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin wrote : "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

And as the cited articles indicate above, Biblical creationism is growing in London and in the UK in terms of its number of adherence and its prominence.

When Darwinism fades into the dust bin of failed human ideologies, will Down House be converted into a Creation Museum?  The Museum of Scientific Atheism in Leningrad was restored to a church by order of the the former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev.  See: Museum of Scientific Atheism  

Related articles

A collection of our articles on European creationism

UK and biblical creationism

The future of European Darwinism and atheism is bleak

Social unrest in Europe altering its religious landscape

Secularism vs. secularism - Biblical Christianity wins! Will postmodernism help bring about the defeat of Darwinism and atheism?

Creation Ministries International website resources
 
Creation Ministries International website

Creation vs. evolution answers

Question Evolution! Campaign

15 questions for evolutionists

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15

Refuting evolution

Evidence for Christianity

Decline of atheism video



15 questions evolutionist STILL cannot answer!



Photo credits:

1. Down House

Description	English: My own photograph of Down House.
Date	2007-12-06 (original upload date)
Source	Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:Richard001 using CommonsHelper.
Author	Original uploader was Anthonyeatworld at en.wikipedia
Permission (Reusing this file)	Licensed under the GFDL by the author; GFDL-SELF-NO-DISCLAIMERS; Released under the GNU Free Documentation License.

	This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
	Attribution: Anthonyeatworld at the English language Wikipedia

Evolution quotes # 50

Stephen Jay Gould; teacher of biology, geology and history of science at Harvard University:

"Science...is supposed to be an objective enterprise, with common criteria of procedure and standards of evidence that should lead all people of good will to accept a documented conclusion...

But I would reject any claim that personal preference, the root of aesthetic judgment, does not play a key role in science...our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology. Historians and philosophers of science often make a distinction between the logic and psychologic of a scientific conclusion-or 'context of justification' and 'context of discovery' in the jargon…

The myth of a separate mode based on rigorous objectivity and arcane, largely mathematical knowledge, vouchsafed only to the initiated, may provide some immediate benefits in bamboozling a public to regard us as a new priesthood, but must ultimately prove harmful in erecting barriers to truly friendly understanding and in falsely persuading so many students that science lies beyond their capabilities...the myth of an arcane and enlightened priesthood of scientists....

T.S. Kuhn referred to the shared worldview of scientists as a paradigm (see his classic 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Such paradigms, in Kuhn's view, are so constraining, and so unbreakable in their own terms, that fundamentally new theories must be imported from elsewhere (insights of other disciplines, conscious radicalism of young rebels within a field) and must then triumph by rapid replacement (scientific revolution), rather than by incremental advance."

Stephen Jay Gould, "In the Mind of the Beholder," Natural History, 103(2): 14, Feb. 1994, pp. 14-16

Evolution quotes #49

Today being April 1st, which in the USA is “April Fool’s Day,” it seemed quite relevant to present the following, quotation from Do-While Jones, “Death and Taxonomy,” Science Against Evolution website:

“…evolutionists believe that because the bobcat, cheetah, domestic cat, jaguar, leopard, lion, lynx, ocelot, puma, and tiger are so similar, they all must have evolved from an extinct common ancestor (the missing cat link).
They also believe that the missing cat ancestor, and the missing bear ancestor, and the missing dog ancestor all evolved from a missing carnivore ancestor.
The missing carnivore ancestor and the missing rodent ancestor, and the missing ancestors of the other 16 orders, all evolved from a missing mammal ancestor.
The missing mammal ancestor, the missing fish ancestor, the missing amphibian ancestor, the missing bird ancestor, and the missing reptile ancestor, all evolved from the missing vertebrate ancestor.
(Or, perhaps, the missing bird ancestor evolved from a reptile ancestor.)
And all these missing vertebrate ancestors either evolved from an unknown invertebrate, or evolved from the missing common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates.”

Evolution quotes #48

Le Gros Clark "'Probably nothing has done more to introduce confusion into the
story of human evolution than the reckless propensity for inventing new (and
sometimes unnecessarily complicated) names for fragmentary fossil relics that
turn out eventually to belong to genera or species previously known.' Instead of
filling gaps in the story of human ancestry, this habit tended 'to produce gaps
that did not exist.'[1]
This problem has in some part been eased in the
half-century since Hooton made his pithy remarks. But it remains inescapably
true that applying the correct label is astonishingly difficult, not least
because such labels are in a sense arbitrary abstractions, and especially so
when the material on which the analysis is being done ins fragmentary and
eroded. 'It is one so difficult that I think it would be legitimate to despair
that one could ever turn into a science.'"[2]

[1] Man-Apes or Ape-Men, published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967, p. 9

[2] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 27 citing "Choose Your Ancestors," lecture at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Sep. 1974

Evolution quotes #47

"If all this were not bad enough, Hooton warns that 'in addition to the
frailties inseparable from the enactment of the role of original describer, one
must also discount the author's previous commitments on the subject of fossil
man, the ghosts of earlier opinions which rise to haunt him in the
interpretation of new evidence.' A dispassionate analysis of new fossil evidence
is possible, he says, 'only when one awaits the reworking of the material by
persons not emotionally identified with the specimen.' Even then, an independent
analyst, while not potentially blinded by emotional attachment to a fossil, will
still have a particular set of preconceptions against which he will judge it. So
dispassionate it may be, but totally objective it can never be."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 26-27

Evolution quotes #46

"But [Earnest] Hooton identifies an even greater danger. This is 'the
psychological conflict in which the discoverer or describer is torn between his
desire to find primitive, unique, or anthropoidal features which will allow him
to place his specimen nearer to the apes than any previously recorded, and his
equally powerful urge to demonstrate the direct and central position of his new
type in the ancestry of modern man.'
When the former impulse is in the
ascendancy, says, Hooton, 'the author is likely to blow the dust off his Greek
and Latin dictionaries and perpetrate some horrid neologism in creating a new
zoological species, genus or even family, thereby committing simultaneously
mortal sins in both philology and taxonomy.' When the latter impulse succeeds,
the describer 'may seize upon metrically or morphologically insignificant
features common to both [modern man and the fossil under study] as evidence of
their genetic relationship.'
In other words, on the one hand you exaggerate
the difference between your fossil and modern humans, thus getting for yourself
a nice, ancient, discrete ancestor. And on the other, you overlook the
differences and exaggerate the similarities, thus setting your fossil on the
threshold of the noble Homo sapiens."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 26

Evolution quotes #45

"The individual lucky enough to have first access to a particular specimen is
therefore likely to 'leave no bone unturned in his effort to find new and
striking peculiarities which he can interpret functionally or genealogically,
Unless he is very experienced, he is prone to discover new features which are
partially the creations of his own concentrated imagination.'"

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 26

Evolution quotes #44

"With the emotional elements of adventure, sacrifice and reward all compounded
in the discovery of a new fossil, together with the soul-stirring aspects of
ancestor worship, it might seem that the odds are heavily stacked against an
objective analysis by the individual who by custom has the right of first
pronouncement. Earnest Hooton, a prominent Harvard anthropologist of the 1930s
and '40s, recognized this trap as 'the psychology of the individual discoverer
and describer.' He wrote that 'The tendency towards aggrandizement of a rare or
unique specimen on the part of its finder or the person to whom its initial
scientific description has been entrusted, springs naturally from human egoism
and is almost ineradicable.'"

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 25-26 citing Apes, Men and Morons, published by Putman, 1937, p. 112

Evolution quotes #43

Michael Day anatomist, "Nine-tenths of your importance in this field comes from
your finds…There is a tremendous bias towards finders. And with this goes an
unwarranted weight on their opinions…I can easily be accused of sour grapes,"[1]
which he states because he is not a finder.

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 25 citing an interview with the author, London, 11 June 1985

Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as operational science?

Question #14:

Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12  creation.com/notscience#distinction (Sourced from 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

_____________________________________

http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html, 3 December, 2004.

______________________________________________________________

A question for the eminent Richard Dawkins, “Sir, if evolution hasn’t been observed while it’s happening, then how can you say it has been observed at all?”

If evolution has been observed, but not while it was happening, then what was actually being observed? 

MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?

DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed?

DAWKINS: The consequences of... It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Now, any detective…

MOYERS: Circumstantial evidence.

DAWKINS: Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. Evolution is true. I mean it's as circumstantial as that, but it's as true as that.

It seems a detective such as Richard Dawkins would likely arrest, prosecute and jail the wrong person for the crime, and be rather proud of himself for doing so.  A massive clue?  How many massive clues does it take for Mr. Dawkins to state a lie to be true?

Clues:

1)  Abiogenesis has never been observed to happen in nature anywhere at any time.

2)  Life has always been observed to come from previously existing life absolutely 100% of the time.

3)  Natural selection “chooses” only the “most fit” traits to pass on, eliminating “weaker” traits and preserving “stronger more fit traits”.  Neither of these adds the new traits necessary for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal.  Natural selection is known to strengthen a given kind of animal, not cause it to become a new kind of animal as required by evolution. (i.e., the breeding of more fit dogs will still only produce a dog)

4)  Mutations corrupt and destroy the information in DNA, causing the organism to “devolve” not “evolve”.  Mutations cause the loss of information giving birth to a lesser animal that will be weeded out by natural selection; not the increase in information which would be necessary for the evolution of one kind of animal to evolve into a more complex, more fit, greater kind of animal.

5)  There are no examples of transitional forms ever existing in nature.  The only transitional forms believed to exist are in the imaginations of scientists and artists.  The massive lack of transitional forms is a clue testifying that evolution did not happen.

6)  By Mr. Dawkins’ own admission, evolution has never been observed while it is happening.  If you cannot observe something while it is happening, how do you know it ever happened?  You need irrefutable evidence before the event, observation and irrefutable evidence during the event, and irrefutable evidence after the event.

Mr. Dawkins, these clues are testable and confirmable, as required by science.  The evidence is against you and your belief in something, which according to your own statement, has never been witnessed to happen.

Evolution is indeed a theory about history.  Evolutionists claim evolution is science, even though evolution directly opposes actual, real, operational science.

Evolutionists:

1)  Where in nature can we observe any animal of any kind reproducing another kind of animal that is more than the original kind and not just a variation of the same kind of animal?  To observe this happening today would make it plausible that it happened in the past.

2)  Where in nature can we observe non-living chemicals evolving into living organisms?  To observe this happening today would make it a plausible explanation for believing it happened in the past.

3)  Science involves conducting experiments and observations to figure out how things operate.   If you cannot conduct experiments on or observe evolution while it is happening, how can it be science?

The belief in evolution is a belief about the history of the universe, from nothing to the “Big Bang” to gas clouds to stars and planets to elements to chemicals (still non-living) to the first living organism(s) to all life we see in existence today.  Evolutionists continually attempt to minimize and change their definition of evolution when part of the overall idea of evolution is shown to be false.  Continuous bait-and-switch changes of definitions continue to show the weakness and bankruptcy of the belief in evolution and its lack of scientific foundation.

Related Articles:

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

‘It’s not science’

Evolution quotes #42

"Richard [Leakey] ran an expedition and as joint leader and main operator of the
practical side he felt that he had a right to loyalty from the expedition
members. Inevitably that meant agreement with him on all important factors
associated with the expedition..if you did not agree on important issues you
could either back down or leave. Most of us backed down a few times and then
eventually left…Despite this, my own preference would be to work for an
expedition run by Richard."[1]
Donald Johanson, "acknowledges that the search
is often spiced by hopes that are not always strictly scientific. 'We have a
passion to find the oldest, the most complete, the biggest-brained, the most
enigmatic fossil,' he recently told an audience at a public lecture at the
American Museum of Natural History in New York.[2] Many anthropologists feel
like this, but few are candid enough to express it publicly."[3]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 250 citing a letter, Findlater to author, 1 Feb. 1985
[2]. "Four Million Years of Humanity," lecture at the American Museum of Natural History, New York, 9 April 1984
[3] Lewin, p. 23

Evolution quotes #41

"The character of the KBS Tuff controversy was in large part colored by the
combination of these two factors: Fitch and Miller's solid adherence to their
original figure, despite their inability to replicate it adequately; and
Leakey's unswerving loyalty to these two men and their contentions. Each party
had very good reasons for acting the way it did. In addition, Leakey clearly had
a vested interest in the older date, if for nothing else that because the claim
for the oldest Homo, oldest stone tools, and so on was good for
fund-raising."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 195

Evolution quotes #40

"An unfortunate tendency has developed of late," Bernard Campbell observed, "for
anthropologists who are mainly engaged in university teaching, rather than in
actual field studies, to start lengthy discussions and criticism on the basis of
preliminary reports, often without even viewing the original specimens, or casts
thereof. This sort of controversy, often accompanied by dogmatic pronouncements,
must be deplored."

Epilogue in Adam and Ape, edited by L. S. B. Leakey and Kack and Stephanie Prost, published by Schenkman Publishing Co., 1971

Is evolution true?

Many if not all who accept the Macro-evolution theory who do NOT work in the field will tell you that it's true because it's written and accepted by experts in the relevant fields. Just because they were taught it as fact they must agree because they are given reasonable logic to accept the world as man see's it.

I was witness to a common and bland discussion in a Christian debate Chat-room. The common emotion for the atheist who was supportive of the theory "or in their opinion FACT" of evolution is just the similarities between breeds of animals today and those that are extinct. Rather than species of animal that are still categorized as say fish but don't see that the Macro says that a fish turned into an amphibian. They can't see that saying "millions of years" and "given our belief of old earth age agrees with the age of dirt we pull must mean the layers date the fossils" we must accept this preconceived data of dating methods and relate everything to that aging process.

Many will say "Everybody, or every creature is a transition" to show that changes are so small that we can't isolate what is changing to dominate the form and behavior of the creature for the future. While still pulling from this, they go on to say that it's spanned over millions of years of evolution. Which is similar to proving the bible with the bible. "Evolution happens because it happens and we can't see it any other way" They'd even go as far as to say the last change that drastically affected a creature's function in it's environment happened so long ago it was before Man kind banged rocks together. Mind you they like the experiment with Nylonase which has been debunked several different ways as not sufficient proof of macro change in a lifeforms.

I posed that if evolution is true then why do the great apes have 1 more pair of chromosomes than Man (we have 23 pairs)? They answer with an unobserved evidence that our missing 24th chromosome pair (which Chimps have) these pairs apparently fused together over a vast time where they (chimps) have 48 chromes in total they figure that it's not a belief but rather an observation that happened before man developed recording methods that this fusion happened. They still say this is SCIENCE even though nothing in science if it is not observable. Where they get a fusion it's a reversal if I remember correctly like a mirror (abcd-dcba)

If you agree that there's some dogma in the above evolution belief, not that I was correct in asking a question and presuming with a bias against evolution but just the validity then please subscribe to this blog and the Main Question Evolution blog-site.

Creation Ministries International offers great sources but is often overlooked because they reject naturalism and methodological naturalism and instead ask "Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?" see: http://creation.com/design_legit. While you're interested give the "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer" page a look.




Related sources:

Creation Ministries International

15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer

Answers in Genesis Hosted by Ken Ham

Main Question evolution Blog page

Evolution quotes #39

Regarding various descriptions of Ramapithecus' anatomy and habits:

"Here then, was a very complete picture of an animal-not just what it looked like, but also how it lived. And all based on a few fragments of upper and lower jaw and teeth…
'What we saw in the fossils was the small canines, and the rest followed, all linked together somehow. The Darwinian picture has a long tradition, and it was very powerful,'"[1]
"Pilbeam and Simmons managed to maintain their support of Ramapithecus [as a hominid], however, mainly by adjusting their lines of argument in concert with the shifting evidence,"[2]
"Pilbeam began to realize that the fossil material then available simply wasn't adequate to support the kinds of sweeping conclusions that had been made,"[3] "before the decade was out Rama's ape would be just that-an ape."[4]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 95 citing an interview with the author, Harvard University, 23 Oct. 1984
[2] Ibid., p. 98
[3] Ibid., p. 103
[4] Ibid., p. 98

Evolution quotes #38

"Some people even admitted that they were giving their fossil a new genus and species name so as to call attention to how important they thought it was. Everyone who had a fossil come into their hands for description wanted it to be something new-perhaps consciously, perhaps unconsciously-for the purposes of self-aggrandizement."

Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 91 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

related resources:
The rise and fall of Skull 1470
Homo erectus 'to' modern man
15 questions responses 2

Evolution quotes #37

Ales Hrdlicka is the founder of the American Society of Physical Anthropology and for many years was the editor of the society's journal, "from which positioned wielded substantial power over what was acceptable to the establishment and what was not…Hrdlicka, he [G. Edward Lewis] says, 'thought he was the anointed and elect prophet who had been foreordained and chosen to make such discoveries and demolish the work of anyone else.'"[1] Lewis had interpreted Ramapithecus as a hominid but Hrdlicka believed it to be just an ape and so he "tore into Lewis's work,"[2] although "Hrdlicka's paper was somewhat self-contradictory, and, says Simmons, 'scattered with blunders and naïvete that a really good professional simply would not have made.'"[3]

"Even a causal examination of this paper is sufficient to show that it bears all the evidence of being a controversial and non-objective contribution,"[4] "amateurish,"[5] "It looked to me like someone coming into something he didn't know much about, with preconceived ideas."[6] Lewis wrote a rebuttal to Hrdlicka's criticism's of his work but the editors of the American Journal of Science refused to publish it, "because they said Hrdlicka was an important man, and I was a young man."[7]

Hrdlicka had attempted to discredit Lewis' position based on the evolutionary concepts of the time whereby "To have the first hominids appearing in the eastern part of the Old World was therefore simply unacceptable. 'So he did a hatchet job on Lewis' work,'[8] says Spencer." Lewis had discovered Ramapithecus but not long after this clash with the authority of the time he "left Yale and never really made another important contribution to paleoanthropology."[9]

[1] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), p. 88 citing a letter, Lewis to author, 31 Oct. 1985

[2] Ibid., p. 88

[3] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

[4] "The Phyletic Position of Ramapithecus," Postilla, Yale Peabody Museum, p. 374 (1961)

[5] "A Source for Dental Comparison of Ramapithecus with Australopithecus and Homo," in South African Journal of Science, Feb. 1968, p. 97

[6] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, Duke University, 25 Sep. 1985

[7] Ibid., p. 88 citing a letter, Lewis to author, 31 Oct. 1985

[8] Ibid., p. 88 citing an interview with the author, New York, 13 Dec. 1985

[9] Ibid., p. 89

related resources:

Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?
 
Finding the real 'missing link'

The Piltdown Man Fraud

Evolution quotes #36

Regarding the Taung fossil:

"Lacking large segments of the anatomical jigsaw puzzle, Smith Woodward had to make some guesses as to how the pieces he had might relate to each other. Apparently misidentifying some minor anatomical landmarks on the interior of the cranium, he assembled a skull that not only was erroneously small (just over 1,000 cubic centimeters) but also appeared to have certain primitive anatomical features. This reconstruction deeply impressed Elliot Smith. Sir Arthur Keith, however, challenged the accuracy of the reconstruction and did one of his own, eschewing the errors Smith Woodward had committed. Keith's version not only was much bigger (about 1,500 cubic centimeters), but also lacked the primitive features erroneously present in Smith Woodward's…

'Why did not [Keith's] correction immediately raise suspicions of the authenticity of the Piltdown fossils?' asked Le Gros Clark. 'Because of its personal nature the controversy [between Keith and Smith] certainly clouded the issues and befogged the atmosphere of scientific discussion…
In his day Elliot Smith's authority carried great weight (and rightly so, for he was a very eminent anatomist), so that not only did he persuade himself that his original interpretation of the skull and endocranial cast had been fundamentally right, he also seems to have persuaded biologists in general that this was so.'[1] But in spite of their differences of opinion, both Keith and Elliot Smith continued to accept Piltdown Man as a vindication of their own ideas, each for his own different reasons. Keith, who viewed the skull as essentially modern in form, saw it as a confirmation of the antiquity of modern types of man. At the same time, Elliot Smith claimed the cranium to be distinctly primitive in form."[2]

[1] "The Exposure of the Piltdown Fraud," lecture at the Royal Institution, London, 20 May 1955
[2] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 74-75

related resources:
The Piltdown Man Fraud

The Taung Skull: 'missing link'?

That quote!

Evolution quotes #35

"When American anthropologist Ales Hrdlicka asked in 1927, 'What is the actual, precise, evidence for human evolution that science now possesses, and upon which it bases far-reaching conclusions?' (my emphasis [Lewin's]),[1] he was in fact posing a question that has no answer. Not because there is no evidence for human evolution, but because3 no science works that way. No science-least of all paleoanthropology-is as objecting as Hrdlicka implies here or as is often portrayed in the philosophers' idealized view of science…
preconceived ideas shape the progress of all sciences, but nowhere else to the degree that occurs in the search for human origins. And yes, personalities are important in the flow of all sciences, but, again, in the science of man emphatically so. Le Gros has an answer: 'Undoubtedly, one of the main factors responsible of the frequency with which polemics enters into controversies on matters of paleoanthropology is purely an emotional one. It is a fact (which it were well to recognize) that it is extraordinarily difficult to view with complete objectivity the evidence for our own evolutionary origin, no doubt because the problem is such a very personal one.' Ernst Mayr, one of this generation's most prominent evolutionary biologists, concurs: 'Human beings seem quite incapable of speaking about themselves and their history without becoming emotional in one way or another.'"[2]

[1] Smithsonian Report for 1927, pp. 417-32
[2] Roger Lewin (noted science journalist), Bones of Contention (New York, NY: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster Inc., 1987), pp. 20-21

related resources:
Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?

Human Evolution Stories

Bones Overthrown

How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Question #11.         

How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? creation.com/chesterton       (Sourced from: 15 Questions for Evolutionists)

The hypothesis of evolution (goo-to-you evolution) is based upon the beliefs of naturalism and materialism, the beliefs that only things that can be discovered by our five senses (consisting of matter) exists.  So, how did blind chemistry (unguided random chemical interactions) produce the working mind and intelligence?

We know we have a mind because we think with it, and evolutionists do not dispute the existence of the mind or intelligence, but neither the mind nor intelligence can be tasted, touched, heard, smelled or seen.  Some may argue that the mind works by electrical impulses causing chemical reactions in our brains.  So, what translates an electro-chemical interaction into meaningful and understandable information?  I can send electrical impulses through a wire into chemicals all day long, but that will not produce a sentient mind or the intelligence of a mind.

So, where did the mind come from and how did it originate?  Since the mind cannot be studied by naturalistic or materialistic methods, but can only be studied by observing the effects of the mind (answering questions, conversation, problem solving, etc.),  should evolutionists deny that the mind and intelligence actually exist?  They deny the existence of God as Creator for this very reason.

Evolutionists, I really want to know, where did the mind and intelligence actually come from?

How did blind chemical interactions cause meaning?  Meaning cannot be measured or tested, yet we know it exists.  What gives purpose to life and the things we do every day?  What gives our lives meaning?

The eminent apologist for evolutionism Richard Dawkins would argue that the only meaning our bodies have is the reproduction of the selfish genes they carry.

I pose these questions to you then:

Who assigned the meaning of reproducing the genes our bodies carry as the meaning for life?

If the meaning of life is to simply reproduce our genes, then why is it mankind is driven to invent, create, think, discover, build or to have meaningful relationships?  Since the only meaning our lives have is to reproduce, why is it we do so much more?  Why does anyone even care about the future or how they will be remembered if our only meaning is to reproduce our selfish genes?  I think Mr. Dawkins is incorrect.

Again, evolutionists, I ask you, how did blind chemicals produce meaning (purpose)?  Since meaning (purpose) cannot be scientifically measured in a materialistic fashion, does meaning and purpose even exist?  If not, then why would Mr. Dawkins argue that meaning does exist (even though it cannot be scientifically quantified)?  So evolutionists, how did blind chemical interactions create meaning?

How did blind chemistry produce altruism?  Altruism cannot be measured by materialistic means, yet we can all witness the results of altruism.  You can mix any chemicals you want in a laboratory, but altruism will not climb out of the beakers.  How did blind chemical interactions produce people doing good for others without expecting anything in return?

As for Mr. Dawkins, how does blind chemistry make someone spend their life, or at least a significant portion (or any portion, for that matter) doing good for others with no gain for themselves, when the only purpose for their body is to be selfish, and only serve the purpose of the selfish genes their bodies are slave to for the only purpose of reproducing them?

Evolutionists, do you have the answer to how blind chemistry created altruism?

What about morality?  How did blind chemistry create morality?  A chemical reaction is a chemical reaction, it is neither good nor bad, nor can it be unless someone assigns meaning or purpose to the chemical reaction; and this cannot happen unless blind chemistry has already created meaning and purpose.

So how is it the chemical reactions in someone’s brain causing them to rape someone can be considered any less moral than giving a poor person money, food, clothing or shelter?  According to Mr. Richard Dawkins, the person committing the rape is at least fulfilling his purpose of reproducing his selfish genes, and it seems that at least that action would be moral, since it is the person’s only true purpose in evolution; that is, according to Mr. Dawkins.  (Evolutionists, do not be foolish enough to attempt to claim I am promoting rape or even considering it is any less than absolutely morally reprehensible, WRONG, and SIN.)

What chemical interactions occur to determine that other chemical reactions are moral, and still other chemical reactions are amoral or immoral?  Are the chemical reactions that make such a determination moral?

Evolutionists, you really have your work cut out for you.  If the blind chemical interactions caused these things, then you do realize the same blind chemical interactions are forcing you to read this article.  Maybe they want you to realize that the chemical interactions in my brain are the ones you should really believe and honor; you know, the ones that know evolution is a bankrupt hypothesis not worth of any claims to scientific integrity.

We all know that minds, intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality exist, and none of them are chemicals; nor can any of them be materialistically quantified.

So how exactly is it that the process of evolution used chemistry to produce non-materialistic things?  Inquiring minds want to know (how your chemicals produced them).

Related Articles:

G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Responses to our 15 Questions: part 3 - Questions 9–15

‘It’s not science’