Ape-like Man and DNA Myths

07 Sep

Has science proved that men have evolved from an ape-like ancestor? No, they haven’t, but to listen to their claims it would seem as though they believe they have! In fact, many people believe there actually is evidence showing the naturalist worldview is correct. Why is this so? It is because the naturalists have captured our educational institutions, and the ears of our political governors. That is quite a successful ploy in their effort to indoctrinate the world to their point of view. Even their outright failures have been used to help make them successful. For example, the Neanderthal man had been believed to be sub-human, but is considered today to be human in every sense of the word. Yet, if someone calls you a Neanderthal, what image do you get in your mind? Is the term complimentary or an insult?

How many of us really question the evidence that is given us from childhood to adult? A child is really vulnerable to error taught as truth, whether in a school environment or as entertainment. For example, how many of us have ever seen the Spencer Tracy 1960 film, Inherit the Wind? It was based upon a true incident that occurred in 1925 Tennessee and received national status as “The Scopes-Monkey Trial”. Did you know all the evidence used to prove Nebraska-man, an ape-like creature (according to the naturalist’s drawings), evolved into a modern human was later discovered to be the remains of a pig? Yet, once again, failure, with the right pr will reap success. Many believe that trial proved the naturalist’s worldview!


NOMA Image from Google Images)

Image from Google Images)

“You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e. of their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes NOMA[1] is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students…”

Image from Google Images

Image from Google Images

“It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved[2]as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without believe in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?” (emphesis added)[3]

In other words, it is okay to lie to students if the objective is to bring them over to the naturalistic worldview. Here, in a nutshell, is proof that the naturalist’s worldview is an ideology and not science—as they would have folks believe!

We often hear today that there is great similarity in the DNA of men and certain ape creatures. Notice how one naturalist put it in an article in a well know magazine supporting the naturalistic worldview:

“Creationist myths were a legitimate approximation to the truth at a time when an answer to where we came from was not known. This is no longer the case. We do know, and in some detail. We have been bread from proto-human forms. About 8 million years ago or somewhat less, a common ancestor gave rise to the chimpanzee and us. The chimpanzee is the ape most closely related, with only one percent of molecular difference between our genus and theirs… a long line of skulls shows the progression through proto-human to human form, known collectively as hominids.”[4]

Yet, this point of view is no longer useful to the evolutionist’s claims. Notice what UCSD zoologist, Pascal Gagneux says about the myth of 1%:

“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were. Now it’s totally clear that it’s a hindrance for understanding than a help.”[5]

The similarities in our DNA more likely point to a common Creator/Designer rather than a common ancestor. It isn’t too difficult to read between the lines above in order to see what is going on. The naturalist’s worldview is promoted at all costs. It doesn’t have to be true, if it is successful in creating the impression that its ideology is correct rather than that of the Bible.

[1] NOMA, i.e. “Non-Overlapping MagisteriA”, is a viewpoint advocated by Stephen Jay Gould. It claims that science and religion each have “a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority,” and these two domains do not overlap. Nevertheless, there is great disagreement over where those ‘boundaries’ should be.

[2] Reference to “Mickey Mouse” points to how his drawings have evolved since his creation by Walt Disney.

[3] Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PloS-ONE (An open-access journal from the Public Library of Science). Why Teaching Evolution Is Dangerous.

[4] Helen lawrence, ‘The Skeptic’, Vol. 19, No. 4.

[5] “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%”, Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316, no.5833, p. 1836, DOI; 10.1125/science.316.5833,1836.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 7, 2013 in naturalism, theory of evolution


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: