Just because something is considered to be fact in the scientific community does not guarantee that it is correct. Afterall, the scientific community was once convinced that the universe was composed of four elements: fire, water, air, and earth. We know now that this is not true.
Evolution is the current prevailing theory right now, but that does not mean that it will not be disproven down the road. It is pretty clear that evolution occurs within a given species (micro-evolution), but there is still a question about whether or not it can actually result in a brand-new species (macro-evolution).
There are many reasons for Christians not to embrace evolution. I find it interesting that the Biblical account of creation trickles into many other areas of life: 7 day week, the seventh day (sabbath) is a day of rest, etc. This would indicate, if you are looking for inward consistency within the Bible, that the world was indeed created in 6 days. Furthermore, there is evidence that the world may be a lot younger than evolutionists say, and that major changes in the nature of the earth, once thought to take thousands to millions of years, can actually happen in a very short period of time. For example, it was once believed that the Grand Canyon took thousands of years over gradual erosion to form, but in the Mt. Saint Helens eruption, a mini-grand canyon was formed in a matter of days. Many now believe that most of the Grand Canyon was formed with one cataclysmic event.
Besides, if one believes that there is an all-powerful God in the universe, and He claims to have made the world in 6 days... well, He certainly could!:-)
I find it interesting that almost invariably arguments for creationism are met with inflammatory name calling. That aside...
My point about history is that the modern view is skewed along the same lines of evolutionary thought. Because man evolved from more primitive roots, he must have had a very primitive culture because the higher intelligence had not yet developed. The problem is that history shows that mankind has been very intelligent from the beginning. He did not develop into his current intellectual state.
I agree that technology has improved our quality of life considerably, and that modern medicine, especially compared to the practices of the dark ages, is quite good. That does not mean that there were not advanced forms of medicine in previous times (not including shamans) in the ancient civilizations (Babylon, Egypt). My point in "have we improved" is a question of our current physical condition. For example, would the average Egyptian be more intelligent, less intelligent, or of the same intelligence as a person from today once their technological and educational experiences are equal. History, as it is currently taught, has the underlining belief that mankind, not just the technology, has improved. This is the issue that I was discussing.
Furthermore, the issue of "evolving" agriculture is actually central to evolution if you think about it. What animals use agriculture to get food? Where did this concept come from? While this is not questioned for homo sapiens, it is certainly an issue when looking at pre-historic man. Much talk about pre-historic man involves the development of tools and methods due to increased intelligence.
My point here is that we have allowed the concept that man had to have come from very primitive backgrounds distort our view of what humanity is. Why do we not see long periods of a more primitive written language? Many of the eariest writings show very advanced thought and complex language structures. Why do we not see the most rudimentary math slowly improve over time as the intellect of the species leading up to homo sapiens improved?
The Neanderthals, as has been pointed out in other responses to this article, were not necessarily a separate species. According to the Bible, mankind started with Adam and Eve, and it is believed that with these two people, the entire spectrum of human genetic potential existed (skin color, differences in skeletal structure, etc.). Also, according to the Bible, all but a very few people from the ancient world died in the flood. It is quite possible that the Neanderthals were simply an offshoot of Adam and Eve - a family that had similar traits - that died off in the flood. While some of the genetic potential for similar traits exist even today, the unique traits that do not exist today may have died out with the flood.
As a bit of an aside, assuming that there actually was a world-wide flood (ie, the entire surface of the world was covered with water), the immense pressure of that water would form the fossils as well as the fossil fuels from the life forms that had lived prior to the flood. Just a thought....
The assumptions also stretch across much of human history. I will admit that I am a creationist (and setting myself up for massive ridicule from the Slashdot crowd) so my opinion will be biased. There is also a massive bias the other way in an attempt to support evolution.
For example, history is heavily biased toward the view that humankind is improving. We often point to our technological advances as evidence, and yet, an objective view at history shows that we have either changed very little or have in fact degraded in our level of intelligence. In ancient times, it took 9 out of 10 people just to produce enough food to feed everyone. That left 1 in 10 to be the leaders, shopkeepers, merchants, and inventors. This 10% of a significantly smaller population devised the complex language structures (many of which we can scarcely comprehend today), mathematics, and understanding of physics to build the ancient wonders of the world. These people did have to invent the wheel.
Contrast that to day where 1 in 10 people are involved in agriculture freeing 90% of the population (and a much larger population than the ancient world) to lead, run business, and develop new technology. Add onto this the fact that we are developing new technology based on a huge library of research and discoveries made by previous generations. Have we really improved all that much? In fact, many belive the medicine in the ancient world was far supperior to that of today due to a deeper understanding of how the body heals naturally (modern medicine is often very invasive).
Now, back to the topic at hand, many assumptions are made about "primitive" man based on what? What evidence is actually available to make the claims that hunting/gathering predated agriculture... especially by the thousands of years proposed. Personally, I find it highly unlikely that it took 25,000 years (look at the number again and consider how much has happened in the last 1000) for people to figure out that agriculture might be a good idea. Yet, because evolution must be true, history is proposed with the same concept: start with very basic, primitive technology and as humans "evolve" to become more intelligent, their technology improves. History does not support this assumption.
Like I said, I am biased in my own views, but I wanted to bring up these issues to show the problems with our current theories. I believe we would all benefit from a proper analysis of the evidence, and a more honest disclosure of what we base our theories upon would only help to illuminate the truth. It would certainly make it easier for a creationist like me to take a study seriously if I understood the evidence upon which it was based.
BTW, there is actually a large amount of scientific study in the realm of creationism. While many who support creationism are rather naive concerning science, that does not imply that the theory itself is not a scientific one. You can look at it from the point of view that creationists believe the world cannot be as old as evolution would require. When dealing with pre-historic theories, remember there is far more that we do not know than what we do know. After all, you cannot reproduce macro-evolution or creation in a lab.
The Chinese are pirating software so that hundreds of Slashdotters will talk about piracy which will lead to heated discussions about the RIAA and sharing music which will result in thousands (millions?) reading these redundant posts which will result in massive loss of productivity bringing about the downfall of the US economy! Don't let them get away with this!
What's a sig?
I realize that Linux is by far superior to Windows from a technical point of view. I use Linux at work, and its reliability is impressive to say the least.
However, when I consider the applications I use the most on my PC, there are no decent equivalents on the Linux platform. Programs like Quicken (probably one of the most popular home applications in existence) or a good musical composition software like Finale or recording/sequencing software like Cakewalk. While some software along these lines exists on Linux, they have not reached the maturity or power of their windows counterparts (just as the Windows apps are just now catching up to Macintosh). Then, of course, there are all of those fantastic games on the PC only a fraction of which make it to Linux.
However, there is one area where Linux beats the Windows world hands down: web servers. Why anyone in their right mind would even contemplate using Microsoft IIS is beyond my comprehension. It is expensive, slow, difficult to manage, and 90% of the viruses released in a given year are aimed at IIS and other Microsoft products. Enter Linux: you can get the best web server in the world (Apache) combined with a fast, reliable database (MySQL) and put together pages with an easy to use and powerful scripting language (PHP) -- for free!
I believe this was really the point of the article. It will be very difficult to take on Microsoft in the PC market, but we already have a head start on the server market. Linux is a far better platform that Windows for servers (afterall, reliability is the single biggest requirement for a good server) and it is far cheaper -- a good argument in rough economic times.
Khomar
Slashdot Mirror
Just because something is considered to be fact in the scientific community does not guarantee that it is correct. Afterall, the scientific community was once convinced that the universe was composed of four elements: fire, water, air, and earth. We know now that this is not true.
Evolution is the current prevailing theory right now, but that does not mean that it will not be disproven down the road. It is pretty clear that evolution occurs within a given species (micro-evolution), but there is still a question about whether or not it can actually result in a brand-new species (macro-evolution).
There are many reasons for Christians not to embrace evolution. I find it interesting that the Biblical account of creation trickles into many other areas of life: 7 day week, the seventh day (sabbath) is a day of rest, etc. This would indicate, if you are looking for inward consistency within the Bible, that the world was indeed created in 6 days. Furthermore, there is evidence that the world may be a lot younger than evolutionists say, and that major changes in the nature of the earth, once thought to take thousands to millions of years, can actually happen in a very short period of time. For example, it was once believed that the Grand Canyon took thousands of years over gradual erosion to form, but in the Mt. Saint Helens eruption, a mini-grand canyon was formed in a matter of days. Many now believe that most of the Grand Canyon was formed with one cataclysmic event.
Besides, if one believes that there is an all-powerful God in the universe, and He claims to have made the world in 6 days... well, He certainly could! :-)
I find it interesting that almost invariably arguments for creationism are met with inflammatory name calling. That aside...
My point about history is that the modern view is skewed along the same lines of evolutionary thought. Because man evolved from more primitive roots, he must have had a very primitive culture because the higher intelligence had not yet developed. The problem is that history shows that mankind has been very intelligent from the beginning. He did not develop into his current intellectual state.
I agree that technology has improved our quality of life considerably, and that modern medicine, especially compared to the practices of the dark ages, is quite good. That does not mean that there were not advanced forms of medicine in previous times (not including shamans) in the ancient civilizations (Babylon, Egypt). My point in "have we improved" is a question of our current physical condition. For example, would the average Egyptian be more intelligent, less intelligent, or of the same intelligence as a person from today once their technological and educational experiences are equal. History, as it is currently taught, has the underlining belief that mankind, not just the technology, has improved. This is the issue that I was discussing.
Furthermore, the issue of "evolving" agriculture is actually central to evolution if you think about it. What animals use agriculture to get food? Where did this concept come from? While this is not questioned for homo sapiens, it is certainly an issue when looking at pre-historic man. Much talk about pre-historic man involves the development of tools and methods due to increased intelligence.
My point here is that we have allowed the concept that man had to have come from very primitive backgrounds distort our view of what humanity is. Why do we not see long periods of a more primitive written language? Many of the eariest writings show very advanced thought and complex language structures. Why do we not see the most rudimentary math slowly improve over time as the intellect of the species leading up to homo sapiens improved?
The Neanderthals, as has been pointed out in other responses to this article, were not necessarily a separate species. According to the Bible, mankind started with Adam and Eve, and it is believed that with these two people, the entire spectrum of human genetic potential existed (skin color, differences in skeletal structure, etc.). Also, according to the Bible, all but a very few people from the ancient world died in the flood. It is quite possible that the Neanderthals were simply an offshoot of Adam and Eve - a family that had similar traits - that died off in the flood. While some of the genetic potential for similar traits exist even today, the unique traits that do not exist today may have died out with the flood.
As a bit of an aside, assuming that there actually was a world-wide flood (ie, the entire surface of the world was covered with water), the immense pressure of that water would form the fossils as well as the fossil fuels from the life forms that had lived prior to the flood. Just a thought....
The assumptions also stretch across much of human history. I will admit that I am a creationist (and setting myself up for massive ridicule from the Slashdot crowd) so my opinion will be biased. There is also a massive bias the other way in an attempt to support evolution.
For example, history is heavily biased toward the view that humankind is improving. We often point to our technological advances as evidence, and yet, an objective view at history shows that we have either changed very little or have in fact degraded in our level of intelligence. In ancient times, it took 9 out of 10 people just to produce enough food to feed everyone. That left 1 in 10 to be the leaders, shopkeepers, merchants, and inventors. This 10% of a significantly smaller population devised the complex language structures (many of which we can scarcely comprehend today), mathematics, and understanding of physics to build the ancient wonders of the world. These people did have to invent the wheel.
Contrast that to day where 1 in 10 people are involved in agriculture freeing 90% of the population (and a much larger population than the ancient world) to lead, run business, and develop new technology. Add onto this the fact that we are developing new technology based on a huge library of research and discoveries made by previous generations. Have we really improved all that much? In fact, many belive the medicine in the ancient world was far supperior to that of today due to a deeper understanding of how the body heals naturally (modern medicine is often very invasive).
Now, back to the topic at hand, many assumptions are made about "primitive" man based on what? What evidence is actually available to make the claims that hunting/gathering predated agriculture... especially by the thousands of years proposed. Personally, I find it highly unlikely that it took 25,000 years (look at the number again and consider how much has happened in the last 1000) for people to figure out that agriculture might be a good idea. Yet, because evolution must be true, history is proposed with the same concept: start with very basic, primitive technology and as humans "evolve" to become more intelligent, their technology improves. History does not support this assumption.
Like I said, I am biased in my own views, but I wanted to bring up these issues to show the problems with our current theories. I believe we would all benefit from a proper analysis of the evidence, and a more honest disclosure of what we base our theories upon would only help to illuminate the truth. It would certainly make it easier for a creationist like me to take a study seriously if I understood the evidence upon which it was based.
BTW, there is actually a large amount of scientific study in the realm of creationism. While many who support creationism are rather naive concerning science, that does not imply that the theory itself is not a scientific one. You can look at it from the point of view that creationists believe the world cannot be as old as evolution would require. When dealing with pre-historic theories, remember there is far more that we do not know than what we do know. After all, you cannot reproduce macro-evolution or creation in a lab.
The Chinese are pirating software so that hundreds of Slashdotters will talk about piracy which will lead to heated discussions about the RIAA and sharing music which will result in thousands (millions?) reading these redundant posts which will result in massive loss of productivity bringing about the downfall of the US economy! Don't let them get away with this! What's a sig?
I realize that Linux is by far superior to Windows from a technical point of view. I use Linux at work, and its reliability is impressive to say the least. However, when I consider the applications I use the most on my PC, there are no decent equivalents on the Linux platform. Programs like Quicken (probably one of the most popular home applications in existence) or a good musical composition software like Finale or recording/sequencing software like Cakewalk. While some software along these lines exists on Linux, they have not reached the maturity or power of their windows counterparts (just as the Windows apps are just now catching up to Macintosh). Then, of course, there are all of those fantastic games on the PC only a fraction of which make it to Linux. However, there is one area where Linux beats the Windows world hands down: web servers. Why anyone in their right mind would even contemplate using Microsoft IIS is beyond my comprehension. It is expensive, slow, difficult to manage, and 90% of the viruses released in a given year are aimed at IIS and other Microsoft products. Enter Linux: you can get the best web server in the world (Apache) combined with a fast, reliable database (MySQL) and put together pages with an easy to use and powerful scripting language (PHP) -- for free! I believe this was really the point of the article. It will be very difficult to take on Microsoft in the PC market, but we already have a head start on the server market. Linux is a far better platform that Windows for servers (afterall, reliability is the single biggest requirement for a good server) and it is far cheaper -- a good argument in rough economic times. Khomar