A Million Pounds Being Thrown Down the Drain....

More Evolution Madness...

When Will We EVER Learn?

Here is an extract from an article which appeared on the BBC's website 15/12/05:

When and how did the human mind evolve?

These are two of the big questions researchers from the UK universities of Liverpool and Southampton will tackle from October.

They will undertake a project called Lucy To Language: The Archaeology Of The Social Brain.

It is being funded to the tune of one million pounds by the British Academy, the largest single research grant the organisation has ever handed out.

The project will bring together archaeologists, evolutionary psychologists, social anthropologists, sociologists and linguists.

They will attempt to reconstruct the social lives of our ancestors - to work out precisely how they behaved using archaeological evidence of their bones and tools and making comparisons with modern humans and other primates.

Mind over body

New models developed for understanding primate behaviour can now be applied to the hard evidence of our ancestors.

This should help us better understand how our brains have developed since the famous early hominid called Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), who lived in Africa about four million years ago....”

(Here are the actual descriptive words which accompanied this - highly imaginative! - picture of 'Lucy' on the BBC website: "Fossil remains of A. afarensis ("Lucy"), a possible human ancestor, were found at Hadar, Ethiopia" Hmmm! This imaginative picture does not look like "fossil remains" to me!)

It is, of course, of no concern to this BBC writer (neither apparently to the British Academy), that the claims that 'Lucy' was a human ancestor are now widely discredited! Here are some links which consider 'Lucy' (they come, certainly, from a creationist site but the first person to ever tell me that 'Lucy' was an utter fraud was an agnostic scientist!):

Lucy - The Missing Link?

Did Lucy Walk Upright?

Lucy; Walking Tall? Or Wandering in Circles?

But even beyond the specific subject of 'Lucy', is it not incredible that the British Academy is prepared to part with a million pounds for a study which will necessarily prove or establish absolutely nothing yet will certainly end in (no doubt colourful and imaginative) reams of speculation? Of course, in order to justify itself I have no doubt that the study's 'final conclusions' will seek to be particularly intriguing and provocative, containing - no doubt - many unworkable, unprovable, fanciful and highly imaginative propositions.

If the British Academy really cared about science would it not make more sense to spend a large amount of money to fund research into better understanding 'Irreducible Complexity'? – since it is this which has 'shaken and stirred' the world of evolution more than anything else during the last ten years.

So we find a very odd thing: while many leading experts in several specific science-related fields are having very major doubts on evolution (and this has been growing and developing for ten years), the western educational system still firmly 'nails it's colours to the mast' of a theory which is plainly dying and plainly incapable of explaining humankind. The suspicion is that the British University system continues to be years out of date (which seems to have been confirmed by my three years at a British university during the 1990s - more info. below *), and only concerned about preserving the status quo and continuing to provide security for a multitude of evolution-oriented researchers, scientists, archaeologists, anthropologists and psychologists because 'rocking the boat'-type research is just too risky and who knows where it might lead? One can guarantee here and now that only devout evolutionists will be invited onto this team. But is this not intellectual dishonesty of the very first rank?

* While taking a theology degree in a Welsh university I found that we were required to take a particular module called, 'History and Religion of Ancient Israel' - during this module we were frequently presented with 'learning' which is now widely rejected and discredited, being overturned by the far better knowledge of the ancient world which we now have - but our lecturer appeared to be unaware of this and only interested in taking his obviously favoured line!