As I sat down with my breakfast cereal to watch the BBC news one morning in May 2009, it soon became apparent that I had switched on my TV to one of the most momentous events in human history. Before me, on my screen, was a smiling Sir David Attenborough (right) standing beside a large fossil which had been affectionately named "Ida" by the man who had discovered her in a quarry in Germany. Barely able to contain his excitement, Sir David exclaimed that "finally, we have in front of us the missing link." A moment that evolutionists had long been awaiting, this was concrete evidence of the fact that mankind had indeed evolved from apes, and in honour of their hero they had given Ida the latin title Darwinius.
Only a matter of weeks later, I came across a much smaller article on a news website that stated that the much heralded Ida was in fact nothing more than the remains of an ancient Lemur, and not the missing link after all. I think I must have missed the BBC news doing their follow up interview with Sir David on this huge disappointment. I was keen to hear his humble apology to all of us for making such a bold proclamation without actually properly investigating the evidence. Sadly, I am still waiting.
However, this is not an uncommon pattern for certain sections of the scientific community, who continue to ignore or play down any evidence which does not support their dearly held position and their increasingly threadbare theories. You may have heard the term missing link before now and wondered what it was all about? The fact is that it is not just one missing link that is problematic in the evolutionary house of cards, but in fact there is no evidence anywhere of one species evolving into something else. You would have expected that with millions of years of evolution there would be countless numbers of relics to support their theory, but despite decades of digging around trying to find them, these scientists keep coming back empty handed. This is a bit of a problem, in fact Mr Darwin himself concluded that this was "the most obvious and gravest objection" to his theory.
So, a lack of evidence to support evolution is a bit of a tough one on it's own. Then there is the other problem of other scientific discoveries that actually seem to support the Biblical account of creation in the book of Genesis. For example, have you ever heard of Mitochondrial Eve? While I do not pretend to be a scientist myself, my wife, who has a degree in Genetics, told me some years ago that studies into human genes had shown that all of human life could be traced back to one woman who apparently was of African origin and lived thousands, rather than millions of years ago. "Why didn't I hear about this in the news" I asked her? After all you would think that would be a fairly important discovery wouldn't you? The problem is it really doesn't fit with the whole evolution bandwagon and therefore it won't be a popular discovery.
The following excerpts were taken from the BBC science website in 2006 on the subject of this lone African heroine who was rather ironically named Eve by the scientific community.
The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck – a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today........*
What could have caused this bottleneck I thought to myself?
Truth is, nobody knows the causes of the population crash. It could have been due to environmental pressures or a raging plague....*
I don't know? A worldwide flood perhaps?
The other important thing to consider is why did Eve survive and prosper where so many others died? Isolation is a tempting route to go down. She missed what-ever happened to everyone because she and her people where somehow isolated from the general population....*
Just a stab in the dark here, but what about if she and her family were in a large floating craft, like a boat or an ark even? Still why go for the most obvious explanation when you can speculate endlessly and are able to prove nothing. Apparently, in every continent and people group on the planet we find legends of a great flood, and a man called Moses, who lived around three and half thousand years ago actually made a record of the event and gave us actual names. Still, that's a lot of religious mumbo jumbo isn't it?
Imagine sitting in a jury in a court of law, listening to the evidence in a case. The prosecution presents you with some flimsy circumstantial evidence with no witnesses and no corroboration, then you find that the defence team were not even allowed to present their evidence at all. You would not get away with this sort of behaviour in any court in the land, but yet this is the kangaroo court of the evolutionist argument.
If you are Interested in knowing more please join us on Saturday the 10th May at 7pm we have Calvin Smith from Creation.com coming to the NewSpring Centre in Wakefield to speak about the origins of our humanity and give actual evidence to believe in the creator.
Alternatively, you can sit in front of your TV and wait for Sir David to finally come up with the goods. Please don't hold your breath.
*Taken from the BBCi website. H2G2