Anthropology 100: Day 1

In our first day of anthropology we have yet to discuss anything related to anthropology.  Instead, we’ve focused largely on that evolution is a fact (not why or if) and the ideologies the professor doesn’t like.  Here are some statements:

1.  Evolution is the only explanation for life that “makes sense”

Oh really?  The never before witnessed concept of life spontaneously arising from non-life “makes sense?”  The lack of transitional fossils needed to validate the evolutionary perspective of the fossil record “makes sense?”

2.  Creation science and intelligent design are not science

It seems funny, don’t you think?  There are many fields that are “not science.”  For example, coffee is not science.  Hinduism is not science.  Blue is not science.  Yet the professor chose not to mention all the examples or even many examples of what science is not.  Rather he chose to enunciate two specific fields of study which he does not consider science.  It just so happens that the two fields he chose to denounce as “not science” are the same two that challenge just about every assumption that is built into this class.  Not only did he not explain why these two fields are not science, he also went on to explain science as the “search for truth” (from the class tutorial) and reinforces his definition as:

“Science deals with the testable hypotheses about natural processes.” (The Human SPecies, Rethelford. Ch. 1, pp. 27)

If this is so then “science” presupposes a natural explanation to everything!  The critical mind immediately recognizes the circular argument as well as the assumption but for you evolutionists out there here is the breakdown, “Everything is natural, science explains what is natural, therefore science explains everything.”  What is hilarious is that a few lines above the author states, “science never claims to have all the answers at any given point.”

Neither did the author or instructor quote any creation or design theorists.  Rather he only quoted the opponents to said theories.  Further he neither consulted the logical connection between his own fields and other evolutionary-bent fields before decrying “intelligent design” as unscientific.  He may have wanted to check with SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) whose main goal it is to search for “intelligent design” in radio waves.  He probably should have checked with Archaeologists whose goal it is to determine whether a piece of clay is just dirt or a pot shard from an ancient civilization.  He may want to ask leading scientists like Chandra Wickramasinghe, Stephen Hawking, or the late Francis Crick (co-discoverer) of DNA- all three of these brainiacs subscribe to the theory of Directed Panspermia- a substudy of Intelligent Design professing that life is too complex for Darwinian evolution and must have been “seeded” by alien life forms. I guess that this junior college professor is more aware then the aforementioned.  For more on the evolutionists definition of “science” please click here.

3.  Evolution does not confront the origins issue

Of course I can’t prove that the teacher actually said this although there were plenty of ear-witnesses.  Right after confirming that evolution will not conflict with our “religious beliefs” we were  told that anthropology does not approach the origins issue.  However, in the second sentence of the book (the Preface) we are made aware that this book will in fact approach the origins issue and in great detail.  Furthermore, the table of contents reveal that at least 4 of 17 chapters are concerned with the origins issue.

4.  Pastors and religious people in the past have had not problems with the class.

So after clearly revealing his belief that religious beliefs are not science we are now supposed to trust the opinion of non-scientific people on a scientific class?  Since when did a particular pastor or subscriber to a belief system determine the value of a class?  It’s like saying singers cannot be trusted with dancing but plenty of singers have said that dancing is fine and their opinion should be trusted.  Does he even hear what he is saying?

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Anthropology 100: Day 1”

  1. Peggy Jacobsen Says:

    Wow Owen, this sounds exciting! You are on the right track. What is your next step? Keep us informed.
    Peggy
    ps great to see you at intern class!

  2. Carolyn Says:

    You weaken your argument by the way you present it. Exclamation points, quotes around the word science, comments like “really?”, name calling using poor grammar (you evolutionists) are mocking other views when you might simply state why you believe an alternative. Scientific findings and religion are not either/or fields, and if you think science should read “science,” you might reconsider driving, flying, using electricity, and taking antibiotics, all of which are founded in sicentific discoveries and principles, including core concepts of evolution.

  3. Owen Hemsath Says:

    That’s an interesting point Carolyn. Of course, being a published author with a degree in media, I can see that I’ve gone over your head. When “science” is in quotes it’s because the term is under review (this is basic. A 101 class could help you a lot. There may even be YouTube videos that could help you understand this elementary stuff). As far as grammar goes you may want to check your spelling first (sicentific) before pointing fingers. With misspelled words like this Im not sure if you’re commenting on my conjugation or my dad’s mother! I’d rather you use your anger to argue the point rather than the format. Missing a period doesn’t mean that all of a sudden life springs from non-life, agreed? What you accept as “core concepts of evolution” are most likely false statements that you’ve come to believe because you’re obviously not a deep thinker. Perhaps you don’t really have a grasp on what “science” is. I mean after all, if your brain is nothing but random culminations of time plus matter plus chance, why should we it be trusted? Would you trust a car put together blindly with no purpose? a plane? an electrical outlet? antibiotics?

    Did I lose you? Poor Carolyn 😦 Can’t even keep up with a silly ole’ Christian.

    Besides, it’s a blog. Sure, there are going to be misspellings and maybe a comma or two missing but you gather the point Im making. Why don’t you argue that instead? My guess is because you don’t have too many strong arguments so you’re nit picky. It’s intellectually weak. We try to keep things at a higher level here on this blog. The fact it, evolutionists (like yourself) are always asking the opposition to weaken their tone and their points in order to achieve an easy win. Sorry, Carolyn. No whiners on this page. If you can’t keep up, Im sure there are lower-level blogs out there for you.

  4. Ladi Says:

    Ouch! Did you have to annihilate her? Where’s the brotherly love?


What do you think?

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: