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?