More Evolutionists Say ‘Ida’ Is Not a Missing Link

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

A fossilized lemur-like creature, nicknamed “Ida,” was broadly heralded in 2009 as one of man’s earliest ancestors. At the time, and despite the hype, various paleontologists expressed doubts regarding the placement of this fossil in man’s evolutionary tree.

Now, after a careful look at the evidence, more researchers are refuting Ida’s “missing link” status. These more measured analyses, however, are not being promoted with as much enthusiasm as the unsubstantiated initial claims that Ida was “our connection with the rest of all the mammals.”¹

A recent article in the Austin American-Statesman highlighted research by University of Texas anthropologist Chris Kirk and his colleagues, who recently published a critique of Ida in the Journal of Human Evolution. Kirk told the Statesman, “It’s a spectacular fossil, but it really doesn’t have any relevance for human evolution.”²

The study’s authors refuted specific claims made by paleontologist Jens Franzen and others in a 2009 PLoS Biology paper, which named Ida Darwinius masillae in honor of British naturalist Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.³

The relevance of Ida to human ancestry depended on her being a haplorhine, a “dry-nosed” group of primates thought to include monkeys, apes, tarsiers, and humans. Kirk and his colleagues revisited Ida’s tooth, skull, jaw, and other body features, and concluded that she was a strepsirrhine, a “dry-nosed” group that includes lemurs and aye-ayes, and that she was thus irrelevant to human evolution. (Some primates do not clearly fit either classification.)

Evolutionists had initially argued that if Ida was one of the earliest haplorhines to have evolved, then she might have been an ancestor to later haplorhines, which they believe eventually became humans. But these later researchers wrote in the Journal of Human Evolution, “Our review of the available evidence leads us to conclude that Darwinius is not a haplorhine and certainly not an anthropoid [man-like creature].”⁴

The American-Statesman reported that Franzen and his colleagues plan to publish a rebuttal of Kirk’s dissent. Like so many other evolution-inspired research questions, the issue of whether or not Ida belongs in man’s evolutionary past may remain wrapped in confusion and never be resolved by researchers who refuse to interpret the data using anything other than an evolutionary paradigm.

Ida’s prominence may someday diminish, but that will most likely happen only after another fossil is erroneously presented as the latest, greatest “missing link.”⁵

References

1. A quotation from British naturalist Sir David Attenborough, contained in Attenborough on Ida: this little creature is going to show our connection with all other mammals. The Guardian. Posted on guardian.co.uk May 19, 2009, accessed May 20, 2009.
2. Castillo, J. UT researcher among those challenging ‘missing link.’ Austin American-Statesman. Posted on statesman.com March 4, 2010, accessed March 9, 2010.
3. Franzen, J. L. et al. 2009. Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology. PLoS One. 4 (5): e5723.
4. Williams, B. A. et al. Darwinius masillae is a strepsirrhine―a reply to Franzen et al. (2009). Journal of Human Evolution. Published online before print February 26, 2010.
5. For a brief list of prior debunked “missing links” in man’s supposed evolutionary past, see Batten, D. 2010. Human evolution: oh so clear? Creation. 32 (2): 46-47.

Some Facts About Evolution

Original

Evolution is widely known theory, and even those people who have never studies science have some idea about it. So much so that it is common  for speakers on Bible and Science to meet people from commerce or history background who are interested in knowing matters related to evolution and the Christian faith.

In this article some of the most important facts and truths about the theory of evolution are given for the benefit of the specialist as well as the general student of these subjects.

First, contrary to what the masses believe, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis of science. It is not a proved fact of science. A hypothesis means that it is a proposal which has to be established by experimental and empirical sciences. Usually the school and college textbooks of evolution give the erroneous idea that evolution is fact or law of science, but this is far from the truth. Just as there are numerous other hypotheses in science, evolution is also a mere hypothesis.

Second, evolution is said to be the result of blind chance. But the study of chance processes shows that it will only destroy order, not evolve it. Whenever matter is left to itself in this universe, as is assumed to have been by evolutionists, order always goes to disorder and complex systems always break down into disordered mess. Information always gets destroyed, which means that  there is no way in which the information residing on genes could come to existence through blind chance.

Third, over one and a half century of searches have yielded billions of fossils but not even a single one of them supports the theory of evolution. According to evolution, there must be numerous fossils demonstrating the evolution of one kind of animal or plant into another kind, but such fossils have never been found. All the fossils that were claimed to intermediate forms have been discredited by scientists on further study .

Fourth, no one has ever demonstrated that man has evolved from monkey-like creatures. Over a dozen kind of ape-man fossils have been exhibited to the world by evolutionists, but on second thought their own competent scientist companions have rejected these finds. Scientists have discovered that some of these fossils represent apes while others represent real men, but that none of them comes from an ape-man. Interestingly, none of the fossils advanced so for comes from an ape man.

Fifth, the earth is not necessarily millions or billions of years old, contrary to the assumptions of the evolutionists ! They try to portray the earth as very old, but this is a result of their theory which demands a very long age for the earth. As far as experiments are concerned, they give  a wide range of results. According to some methods of determining the earth’s age, this planet is only a few thousand years old. Other tests give an age of 10,000 or 20,000 years and some give it in millions or billions of years.

An honest and objective scientist will give  consideration to all these dates in his discussion, but the evolutionists select out the long ages only just because it suits them.

Sixth, a good number of competent Darwinists have abandoned their belief in Darwinism : some of them are highly reputed scientists, and they have published their conclusions in books and scientific papers. They have done so because they could not find a single scientific proof in favour of Darwinism:

Seventh, some highly competent evolutionists have abandoned all forms of evolution. They have discovered that whether it is the Darwinian form or some other form of evolution, it just does not work. Scientifically the evidences are nil. Many of them have even made this known to the scientific community.

Eighth, there are many scientists now who accept that the scientific evidence is in favour of creation.  These people are not Christians, nor believers in creation. Yet out of their scientific observations they are forced to believe in creation.

Ninth,  numerous scientific discoveries have shown that evolution is not possible. In other words, more and more of the scientific discoveries speak against the possibility of evolution of life by blind chance. This is why the famous scientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickremsinge abandoned their faith in the theory of evolution. Scientists of world renown, they have widely published the reasons why life on the earth could not have evolved by chance processes.

Tenth, while the discoveries of science have been going against the theories of evolution, they have been providing more and more support to the Bible. There are numerous supporting evidences in favour of Bible — from physics, chemistry, logic, information sciences, archaeology, history, and of course from biology also.

Eleventh, no known fact of science contradicts the Bible, and the Bible does not contradict any established fact of science.

Every serious student of science should consider the Bible and its claims seriously.

[Dr. Johnson C. Philip is a physicist, with expertise in Quantum-nuclear Physics, and has worked extensively on the inner quark-structre of Protons and Neutrons. He has also specialized in Christian Apologetics, Biblical Archeology, and several other fields. This website provides you an access point to the dozens of websies that he maintains.]



10 dangers of theistic evolution

First published: Creation 17(4):49–51
September 1995

by Werner Gitt

The atheistic formula for evolution is:

Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.

In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:

Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.

In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.¹

Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).

Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)

Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.²

Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:

• Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.
• In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).
• In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).
• Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.

Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).

However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.

Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).

Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.

Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:

• The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).
• The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).
• The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.
• Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
• The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:

1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:

• God created matter without using any available material.
• God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.

Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.

Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.⁴

If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!

Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:

1. Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
2. Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
3. Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).
4. We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).
5. Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’⁵ Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.

Conclusion

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.

Web links

Q&A: Creation Compromises

References

1. This article has been adapted from chapter 8 ‘The Consequences of Theistic Evolution’, from Prof. Dr Werner Gitt’s book, Did God use Evolution?, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V., Postfach 11 01 35 . 33661, Bielefeld, Germany.
2. E. Jantsch, Die Selbstorganisation des Universums, München, 1979, p. 412.
3. Hoimar von Ditfurth, Wir sind nicht nur von dieser Welt, München, 1984, pp. 21-22.
4. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, 1986, p. 316.
5. H. Penzlin, Das Teleologie-Problem in der Biologie, Biologische Rundschau, 25 (1987), S.7-26, p. 19.

---

What Does Theistic Evolution Involve?

The following evolutionary assumptions are generally applicable to theistic evolution:

• The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
• It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.
• As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and their subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).
• Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.
• The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.
• The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.
• The present is the key to the past.
• There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
• Evolution will persist into the distant future.

In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:

1. God used evolution as a means of creating.
2. The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
3. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary worldview.

* This section is adapted from Werner Gitt’s, Did God Use Evolution?, pp. 13-16, 24.

“More Americans Believe in the Devil, Hell and Angels than in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”

Harris Interactive

In a poll sure to make nearly everyone cringe—for varying reasons—more respondents were found to believe in “the devil, hell, and angels” than in Darwinism.

The Harris Poll surveyed more than 2,000 U.S. adults on a variety of questions related to the supernatural, both Christian (e.g., God, creation) and occult (e.g., witches, astrology). The poll also broke respondents into groups based on religious affiliation (Catholic or Protestant) and frequency of church attendance. Among the most interesting results:

• 80 percent of all respondents believe in God; 93 percent of Catholics and 95 percent of Protestants (strange that 5-7% of self-identified Catholics and Protestants are apparently atheists).
• 47 percent of all respondents accept Darwinism. Catholics are more likely (52 percent) than average to accept it, while Protestants are less likely (32 percent). 67 percent of those who never attend religious services said they accept Darwinism.
• 40 percent of all respondents accept creationism, with those attending religious services at least weekly the most likely to accept it (64 percent); that number was strongly correlated with frequency of church attendance. Accepting creationism were 54 percent of Protestants and 46 percent of Catholics overall.
• Belief in miracles, heaven, the deity of Christ, angels, the Resurrection, survival of the soul after death, hell, the virgin birth, and the devil were similar between Catholics and Protestants. However, Catholics were significantly more likely than Protestants to believe in ghosts, UFOs, and astrology.
• Perhaps unsurprisingly, the group most likely to believe in ghosts (56 percent), UFOs (50 percent), astrology (39 percent), and reincarnation (33 percent) were those who attend religious services less than once a year (the category just ahead of those who never attend religious services). Presumably these respondents are neither grounded in religion nor are materialists, leaving them particularly susceptible to believe in the paranormal.

Questions were also asked about what constituted the “word of God,” though the results were not broken up according to religious attendance. Of all respondents, approximately 55 percent believe all or most of the Bible is God’s Word; for the Torah, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon the figures were 26, 9, and 10 percent, respectively.

Most of the findings are unsurprising, of course, and are reminders of the cultural divide in our society. In the past we’ve reported how Christians and theists are actually less likely to believe in (or “more skeptical of,” you could say) the paranormal than are those without religious affiliation.

What is most clear is something else we all already know: the church has as much of a mission as it ever has, and the harvest is as plentiful as ever.

For more information:

• Don’t Creationists Believe Some “Wacky” Things?
• Are ETs & UFOs Real?
• How Can I Use This Information to Witness?
• Get Answers: Aliens/UFOs, God, Religion, The Bible