1000 CHAPTER 6 the Creation Of

1000 CHAPTER 6 The creation of man: creation, not macroevolution – mind the gap. a] Human Anatomy: the generally united creationist school. b] Spotting the wood from the trees - the similarities of homology in promisians, simians, satyr beasts, & men; & the generally united creationist school. c] Soul-talk: i] Distinguishing man from animals - the soul gives man a god focus & capacity for religious belief in the supernatural, and conscience morality seen in a moral code. ii] A revised taxonomy for primates must replace the erroneous twofold taxonomy used for primates. iii] Distinguishing satyr beasts & Man, the Apers & Adamites: A clean cut – like putting a knife through butter. A] Men have souls, animals do not: the APER (African Pre-Edenic Race). B] An Aper Case Study: Australia. C] People “going ape” over the Apers. iv] Where creationists do differ: Subspeciation with respect to man. A] Where are the Adamites in the fossil record? B] Did God create diverse human races? A short preliminary discussion. d] The illusive search for Mitochondrial Adam & Eve: “I know that my genes have ancestors back to Adam: whereas paleontologists can only speculate that fossils they find had descendants.” e] Perforated bones: “Blowing the bone whistle” on “anthropologists” playing loony tunes on “bone flutes.” f] Frustrated Darwinian Macroevolutionists use fraudulent “transitional fossils” against the generally United Creationist School. (Chapter 6) a] Human Anatomy: the generally united creationist school. In 1802, creationist Paley used as a teleological argument of the human body, saying, “For my part, I take my stand in human anatomy 1.” This validly looks to the complexities of human biology to see a design pointing to a Divine Designer. E.g., creationist, Jonathon Sarfati, refers to how the human appendix has lymphatic tissue that helps to control the flow of bacteria into the intestines, much like the tonsils also fight throat infections. Paradoxically, Darwinists once looked at something like the human 1 Richardson, A. (Editor), A Dictionary of Christian Theology (1969), op. cit. , p. 141 at “God,” subsection 6, “The Cosmological & Teleological Arguments,” citing Baillie, J., The Interpretation of Religion , 1929, p. 78. 1001 appendix as a “vestigial organ” from an alleged macroevolutionary past of man. But more careful scientific research has shown that the human appendix serves a function in cultivating appropriate bacteria connected with the digestive system 2. This type of idea of “vestigial organs” is found in Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) where he says, “on my view of descent with modification,” one finds “the vestige of an ear in earless breeds 3.” A prime example of this are human “wisdom teeth.” E.g., creationist, Jonathon Sarfati, refers to Ebbert & Sangiorgio (1991) as giving a “typical [macro]evolutionary explanation,” when they say, “our ancestors had larger jaws, so there was room in the human mouth for 32 permanent teeth, including their molars – wisdom teeth. But now our jaws are smaller … . So … our wisdom teeth … often become impacted …4.” In response to this macroevolution claim, Sarfati considers the issue is one of “diet,” in which certain “dental research” has found this is “a factor in smaller jaws.” I.e., stronger “chewing” action “helps the jaw itself develop properly,” and when this occurs, “the jaw” will “develop to full size,” and so wisdom teeth will not impact. In support of this, Sarfati says that in “cultures” where “jaw exercise” occurs, “impacted wisdom teeth are almost unknown 5.” While I can accept that Sarfati’s & Bergman’s solution is one relevant factor , the fact that Sarfati finds it necessary to make the concession that where this is done “impacted wisdom teeth are almost unknown ,” indicates to me that this is not a sufficiently comprehensive response. Put bluntly, the evolutionists appear to be correct that “our ancestors had larger jaws.” But I do not see this as a problem. That is because, it does not, as the Darwinists claim, mean that man macroevolved, as seen in Darwin’s claim that “some ancient member of the” “anthropomorphous apes” “gave birth to man,” so that “man” came from what “would have been properly designated” “as an ape or a monkey 6.” Rather, what it means is that 2 Sarfati, J. (young earth creationist) By Design: Evidence for Nature’s Intelligent Designer – The God of the Bible , op. cit. , pp. 208-209; citing work at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, USA, by Bollinger et al , “Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparent function of the human vermiform appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology , Vol. 249, No. 4, 2007, pp. 826-831. 3 Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859), chapter 13, “Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs,” section, “Rudimentary, atrophied, or aborted organs.” 4 Sarfati, J. (young earth creationist) By Design: Evidence for Nature’s Intelligent Designer – The God of the Bible , op. cit. , pp. 204-205; citing Ebbert, S & Sangiorgio, M., “Facing the dreaded third molar,” Prevention , Vol. 43, No. 7, 1991, pp. 108-110. 5 Ibid. (emphasis mine); citing Bergman, J., “Are wisdom teeth (third molars) vestiges of human evolution?,” Journal of Creation , Vol. 12, No. 3, 1998, pp. 297-304 (http://www.creationontheweb.com/wisdom-teeth ). 6 Darwin’s Descent of Man (1871), chapter 6, “On the Affinities & Genealogy of Man.” 1002 man microevolved inside of the Adamic human race, from an Adam and Eve who coming from before the fall, evidently had larger jaws, and so by implication, larger skulls, and overall larger bodies . Thus I would agree that such wisdom teeth are a “vestigial organ,” though not as the Darwinists claim, from macroevolution of man from Darwin’s “ape or … monkey,” but rather, from microevolution within the human race as a result of the Fall from a larger jawed Adam and Eve. We thus find that Paley teleological argument of the human body, saying, “For my part, I take my stand in human anatomy,” is a good creationist argument that has stood the test of time. So too, creationist, Jobe Martin, notes issues of irreducible complexity and Divine deign are present for various parts of a body (whether human or animal), e.g., one cannot have part of a lung, or part of a liver, these type of organs have to all be there in order for the thing to work, or one has a dead creature 7. And there is another element to the issue of man, for King David says of God, “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Ps. 139:14). This verse points us not only to the way our bodies are “fearfully and wonderfully made” in harmony with Paley’s teleological argument for physiological design of the human body, but beyond this, to the presence of the “soul” in a man. We shall return to this issue of the human soul at e.g., Part 2, Chapter 6, section c, subsection i, “Soul-talk,” “Distinguishing man from animals - the soul gives man a god focus & capacity for religious belief in the supernatural, and conscience morality seen in a moral code,” infra , and Part 2, Chapter 6, section c, subsection iii, “Distinguishing Satyr Beasts & Man, the Apers & Adamites: A clean cut – like putting a knife through butter,” infra ; and also at Part 2, Chapter 7, section c, “The soul linked to Teleology, Ontology, Conscience Morality, & Ethnology: the generally united creationist school,” infra . Paley’s teleological argument of the complexities of human anatomy as pointing to a Creator are clearly endorsed in Holy Scripture. For example we read, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:14). And with respect to specific human organs, “he that planted the ear, shall he not hear?” (Ps. 94:4). Or “he that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps. 94:4). And with regard to both of these organs, “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them” (Prov. 20:12). The ear 1 th of man (and other creatures with an ear drum), moves a very small amount, about /100 or 0.01% the width of a hydrogen molecule, which is one the smallest molecules. And yet this allows a man to distinguish between such sounds as the trumpet, drum, harp, and a mixture of different human voices 8. Or with respect to man’s capacity to e.g., talk and see, “the Lord said …, Who hath made man’s mouth? Or who maketh … seeing …? Have not I the Lord?” (Exod. 4:11). 7 Martin, J. (young earth creationist), Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution , op. cit. , Volume 2. 8 Ibid. , Part 1. 1003 Though many of the valid arguments that could be considered about human anatomy will not be discussed in this work, some relevant matters will be. Consider e.g., the teaching of Psalm 94:4, “he that formed the eye, shall he not see?” As previously observed, Darwin falsely considered that he had answered this by his theory of macroevolution when he says in Origin of Species (1859): “In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; … and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man? 9” But as previously noted, this argument flounders on e.g., the fallacy that to have a small percentage of an eye is not to have that percentage of vision, since to have any vision at all first requires the presence of a large number of complex eye components all working together.

Load more