Israel opening nature museum, with evolution exhibit

In this Sunday, May 28, 2017 photo, taxidermist Igor Gavrilov works on a stuffed leopard to be displayed at the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History in Tel Aviv, Israel. Israel is opening a new national natural history museum in Tel Aviv in the wake of a public debate over evolution. The ultra-modern facility houses over 5.5 million specimens of species from around the world, and aims to raise public awareness about the natural world and environment, with especial emphasis on the local ecology. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — After decades of planning and delays, Israel is opening the doors of a new national natural history museum in the city of Tel Aviv, a facility that aims to increase scientific education despite religious opposition to the theory of evolution.

The ultra-modern ark-shaped edifice is set to open in July alongside the Tel Aviv University campus and houses over 5.5 million specimens of species from around the globe. But the Steinhardt Museum of Natural History places special emphasis on the flora and fauna indigenous to the Holy Land and Middle East. The $40 million project, decades in the making, was funded in large part by American billionaire Michael Steinhardt, a major donor to Israel who keeps a menagerie of exotic animals on his estate north of Manhattan.

The museum’s curators say the institution — ticketed as the only natural history research center in the Middle East — aims to raise public awareness about the natural world and environment by highlighting both the country’s ecological diversity at the crossroads of three continents, and the devastation wrought by modern development.

Its halls combine traditional dioramas and innovative interactive displays to showcase thousands of specimens. Stuffed hawks, pelicans and vultures swirling around the building’s entrance are meant to depict epic avian migrations from Africa to Europe through Israel.

The last Syrian bear to inhabit the country, killed in 1916, and the last Asiatic cheetah, killed in 1911, are ghosts from a lost world, teaching visitors about the devastating changes to the local habitat.

“The main goal of the museum is to bring the public closer to nature,” said Alon Sapan, the museum’s director. “To allow it to feel nature firsthand while supporting this emotional visit with a lot of interesting scientific stories and information, all of which are research-supported … here at the university and this building.”

Behind the scenes are the museum’s labs and research facilities, allowing hundreds of scientists from a variety of disciplines to study the samples of the natural world in the collection. Museum Chair Tamar Dayan said natural history museums play a “key role” in the scientific endeavor to map the web of life and identify, name and study the millions of species on Earth.

“Natural history museums record nature, study nature, and also share their knowledge and treasures with the general public,” Dayan said.

The museum doesn’t shy away from pointing the finger at humanity for its destructive role in the natural world. It places a significant emphasis on anthropogenic climate change and habitat destruction.

But when it comes to human evolution, things are more complicated.

An exhibit on human evolution titled “What makes us human?” looks at humanity’s evolution through the lens of cultural accomplishments: the harnessing of fire, innovation of tools, and development of agriculture. The exhibit is situated on the top floor of the museum, allowing any visitors who may find the subject objectionable to easily bypass it.

“It’s really a sensitive issue in Israel,” said Israel Hershkovitz, a Tel Aviv University anthropology professor who helped curate the exhibit, echoing remarks from other museum officials.

He said there was no intentional decision to hide the exhibit or censor its contents in any way. But he said there also was no intention “to tease the religious” and the out-of-way location was for the best.

“It’s up to everyone whether he wants to see the anthropological exhibition or not. He is not forced to pass through it, it’s the last part of the exhibition, he can go and see it, or if he doesn’t want to see it, he doesn’t have to,” Hershkovitz said.

The Natural History Museum said in a statement that the exhibit’s placement on the top floor was “made within considerations from several angles, which include the museum curation and story plan and the space of each of the museum galleries.”

Orthodox Judaism’s strict interpretation of the Bible leads many to reject the theory of evolution, which is not taught in state-funded ultra-Orthodox institutions, which make up 23 percent of Israel’s schools. Even in non-religious schools, critics point out that relatively few high school students encounter the subject of human evolution in Israeli classrooms.

A small natural history museum in Jerusalem recently came under fire for covering an exhibit about human evolution with a sheet to appease ultra-Orthodox visitors. The museum’s curator defended the decision, saying the religious students otherwise would not have had any exposure to natural history whatsoever.

For many Orthodox Jews, said Rabbi Natan Slifkin, director of the Biblical Museum of Natural History in Beit Shemesh, evolution has become “the thing that in people’s minds defines the lines between the religious and the atheists.”

Although he considers evolution “an adequately proven scientific fact,” Slifkin said his institution decided not to include exhibits about evolution because it would “severely damage our educational mission” of exposing ultra-Orthodox Jews to the natural world.

“Judaism is also connected to crocodiles and hyenas, not just to synagogues and things like that,” he said.

About the author

The Associated Press


Click here to post a comment

  • How would discussion of evolution in a nature museum possibly be controversial?

    It is the prevailing scientific framework for discussing the subject. The sole objections to it have nothing to do with science and everything to do with dishonest notions of personal faith. If one values science and honest discourse, evolution is taken as a given when discussing natural history.

  • As Hillary would say, “What difference does it make?!”
    God is the creator – who cares if it was 7 days or millions of years….

  • This is what happens in a country where the religion-addicts have too much power and influence. In the US, we are always just one or two missteps away.

  • Who is Hillary? Is she a scientist? Is she in public office? Is this someone I need to care about?

    “God is the creator – who cares if it was 7 days or millions of years….”

    Fundamentalist Christian liars care. Scientists care. Anyone concerned with factual representations in the world care. Liars don’t.

    The facts always matter. Its just that some choose to disregard or attack them. All things considered, the evidence backed claims in Evolution are far more credible and worth taking seriously than those of Fundamentalist Christians looking to deny their faith in public.

  • It’s considerate of the museum to keep the building layout arranged so that the devoutly religious can hide from the parts of nature they’re afraid of.

  • Why is this news? Every intelligent country and city has a Natural History Museum which, of course, shows evolution since it is the truth.

  • I would have preferred that they stuck the fake worthless “human evolution” propaganda right in the front lobby for all to see. Put it right up front there for everybody.

    That way, the Israeli clergy, scientists, and responsible laypersons could walk right in, and cheerfully deploy both Science and Scripture (and YouTube) to totally dissect, dissolve, and destroy the atheistic cr*pola every day.

  • Now now, Brian. Not all of us who are devoutly religious are in denial about science and nature. I, for one, am not afraid of anything nature has to offer — except, of course, the stuff that everybody should be afraid of. For instance, had that leopard in the photo been alive instead of stuffed, I’d have no problem giving it a wide berth.

  • Professor Burgess has as much right to promote his theories as anyone else, but they remain theories. The reality is that the vast majority of Christians have no problem reconciling evolution and creation.

  • In a way, this museum is the perfect metaphor for religious fundamentalists (or any kind of fundamentalist, for that matter). They see what they want to see, and what they don’t want to see, they don’t see.

  • Yes, while we are destroying evolution propaganda, let’s also destroy that spherical earth propaganda and knock down any nonsense about a 13 billion year old universe !! — 6000 years old, (8000 max. – Sorry you 10K people are just as bad as Darwin !!)

    Also, add in a ‘Manna from Heaven” exhibit — this is a Nature museum after all — in Israel.

  • Whenever the online opportunity arises, I ask Christians how they personally reconcile Evolution’s biggest historical claim,

    (the one about how materialistic evolution somehow originated the first humans from a non-human “ape-like common ancestor” animal),

    with the very specific, totally opposing, zero-animal-ancestor-at-all historical claim of human origins in the Bible.

    No answers, no reconciliations, have been offered yet. Christians can’t do it. Nobody can. And it only gets worse when I mention that, according to the Theory of Evolution itself, Adam & Eve never existed. That’s what the evolutionists actually teach. No reconciliation is possible.

  • Okay, Floyd, I’ll share what I believe, just so you can no longer say that no has ever answered your question. I’m not interested in debating this and I fully understand that you disagree.

    I believe that the creation accounts in Genesis are myths, by which I do not mean that they are false but that they are archetypal stories designed to help us understand deeper truth. I believe that Adam and Eve are allegorical figures that represent the first humans, which evolved from lesser forms of life. These beings became “human” at the point when they developed sufficient intellect, will and the desire to know their Creator that they became morally accountable. In other words, at that point in history they (metaphorically) “ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

    I also believe that this was all part of a divine plan and that it was entirely set in motion by the hand of God. I do not believe that existence is some sort of cosmic accident. In that sense, I depart from Darwinian evolution theory. Whether creation took seven days or billions of years is immaterial since God transcends the limits of time and space.

    I will add that I’m Roman Catholic and my beliefs are consistent with what my Church teaches. Again, I have no interest in debating and I will not reply should you go there. I respect your belief in the literal interpretation of Genesis, but I do not share it.

    Moving on. Peace.

  • You actually believe that “Adam & Eve” existed?!! Do you also believe in Unicorns & Leprechauns? This is why nothing else that you share has any credibility or integrity.

  • Well, you’re certainly a brave soul, to share what you really believe on THIS topic! And you were concise and well-focused on it too. So sincere kudos to you. And yes, your belief does reflect Catholicism.

    By the way, no worries about debating. Some do wanna, some don’t wanna. C’est la vie. (But I’ve discovered that if I attack Evolution sharply & concisely with a few specifics, I never have any trouble attracting those who do wanna.)

  • You seem shocked that any rational person would believe that Adam & Eve actually existed in Earth history. Clearly you’ve been taught the Theory of Evolution, for sure.

    So let’s say you’re right; let’s say Evolution is correct. Hence Adam & Eve never existed. What is the end result?

    “Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.” — atheist Frank Zindler.

    That’s the end result, Mr. C. Therefore Evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.

  • Does the Israeli museum contain looted items? If not, evolution or no, they’re ahead of the bible museum.

  • Creationism is not just for Ken Ham anymore. Alexander Nussbaum writes:

    By definition Jews who accept evolution are not Orthodox. Up until about 25 years ago there were fledgling attempts to reconfigure evolution to fit within a modern Orthodox framework, and there was some acceptance of the idea that a biblical year meant a vast time span. But with the extreme move to the right in the Orthodox community, and with ever more stringent observance constantly demanded, evolution is light years beyond the pale — 5,766 light years to be exact, which is the age of the universe according to Orthodox Judaism.

    I wonder what caused the Orthodox to become more conservative over the past few years.

  • Put evolution aside. Your belief in Adam and Eve requires a suspension of all reason and intelligence. That’s what you need “saving” from, right there. It’s an ancient myth, a fable. There is absolutely zero evidence for “Adam & Eve”, and the fact that it’s a story passed down in the bible does not constitute evidence. There were many stories such as this one in the ancient world.

  • Except you don’t attack evolution sharply or concisely. You refer to people with no credibility on the subject, make sweeping pronouncements and lie about your faith.

  • You are annoyed that faith is really the basis of your belief and wish it were something more credible to others.

    So you lie and claim it is based on objective study and evidence.

  • Pope John Paul Is reconciled it a while ago in his encyclical “Truth Does Not Displace Truth”. The overwhelming majority of Christians reconcile it. It’s only dishonest fundamentalists who have trouble with it.

    Creationism is based on lying as a way to protect your religious belief. Forcing you to deny what is plainly observed and discovered with objectively credible evidence. Making you lie about your faith. To deny it and pretend your belief is based on something else.

    All because you are too insecure to acknowledge that there is no compelling reason why people have to believe as you do.

  • fear of exposing their children you think? i love they did that just out of plain respect and the notion that science is for everyone if they want to check it out..i think its cool

  • So now Evolution is flat-out incompatible with Orthodox Judaism as well as Christianity?

    “Ohhhh Noooo!!” — Mr. Bill (from Saturday Night Live).

  • i agree and but respectfully disagree on a couple points.
    your reply/statement was beautifully written and gracefully opposed.. I actually enjoyed reading it?

  • you know that Charles Darwin he WAS religious and is buried at Westminster Abbey right?

  • The Quran basically makes Adam and Eve Muslim. And the Quran is the last word from God.

    Sorry Jesus, you are old news !!

  • Not surprised. Jews (Edomites) are of their father the devil — John 8:44

    Encyclopedia Americana (1985):

    “Ashkenazim, the Ashkenazim are the Jews whose ancestors lived in German lands…it was among Ashkenazi Jews that the idea of political Zionism emerged, leading ultimately to the establishment of the state of Israel…In the late 1960s, Ashkenazi Jews numbered some 11 million, about 84 percent of the world Jewish population.”

    The Jewish Encyclopedia:

    “Khazars, a non-Semitic, Asiatic, Mongolian tribal nation who emigrated into Eastern Europe about the first century, who were converted as an entire nation to Judaism in the seventh century by the expanding Russian nation which absorbed the entire Khazar population, and who account for the presence in Eastern Europe of the great numbers of Yiddish speaking Jews in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Galatia, Besserabia and Rumania.”

  • Hey, speaking of alleged “people with no credibility on the subject” …

    … Did I forget to tell you that the famous biochemist Dr. Michael Behe (one of the pioneers of Intelligent Design, whose scientific concept of “irreducible complexity” has gradually ripped Evolution apart), now has an actual fossil dragonfly species named after him?

    “Chrismooreia michaelbehei.”
    Is that kewl or what? Even you gotta be happy about this recent news, Spuddie.

  • You mean the guy who lost his one chance to make his claims in an objective forum and subject them to inquiry?

    Behe is a hack and a liar who has admitted more than once that all he does is declare “God did it” and ignore evidence. Intelligent design was already proven to be non scientific religious fundamentalist fibbing. See “The Dover Case”)

    His own school thinks he is full of crap.

    “While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific”

    Irreducible complexity is a big term for , “I am lazy and dishonest so rather than address an issue I will just declare God did it and walk away”. It is not a scientific idea. It is bad religion with jargon.

    Evolutionnews is a Creationist website set up to deceive the public. Creationists are compulsive liars. It us not a credible source for anything other then to illustrate what Creationists want to lie about.

    Your need to deny your faith and pretend your belief has a different basis is immature at best.

  • Oh yes, Darwin “was” religious. Past-Tense. “Was.” That needs to be emphasized 100%, maybe 200%. Darwin is one of the saddest, evolution-based “de-conversion” stories in history.

    First Darwin gradually lost faith in the trustworthiness of the Old Testament. Then Darwin similarly lost faith in the Gospels. Ditched his faith in Jesus. Evolution played a big part (not the only part, but certainly a big part). Darwin wrote, “The more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible (“impossible to believe”, Oxford Online Dict.) do miracles become.”

    That’s really important. For if God’s supernatural, super-fast creation miracles of Genesis are historically false, how can Jesus’ supernatural, super-fast creation miracles of the Gospels (the feeding of the 5000, the healing of a man’s withered hand) be historically true?

    And if Adam, the first man, is historically false, how can Christ’s Atonement (a very very big miracle) be historically true? (see the connection in Rom. 5:12-17.)

  • “By definition Jews who accept evolution are not Orthodox”

    Which was a false definition. Biblical literalism is specifically not a tenet of Judaism. Even the ultra-orthodox treat it as the subject if debate and analysis. (See Midrash).

    Creationism is a new add on to their beliefs.

  • Another Stormfront cut and paste without attribution.

    Roy, even David Duke told his fellow white supremacists to stop using the Khazar junk because it made them look more foolish than usual.

    Like we did Nazi that coming.

  • Natural history museum tend to be light on those. Reproductions are the usual course. Art museums are a different story.

  • So you are saying that Catholics aren’t Christian? Because the church accept evolution.

  • Exactly, Ben. It’s US, the Christians, (not you atheists), who need to take the lead in publicly pointing out just how utterly incompatible Evolution really is with Christianity. WE, not you, need to be taking the risks and doing full disclosure as to what’s really being offered in the public marketplace of ideas. Would you agree?

    If people are going to choose Jesus Christ as Savior and Ruler, then let them choose with their eyes wide open regarding what their own Bibles are really saying about things. People deserve to make a **fully informed** choice on these and other matters.

  • Sure, the official denomination, “The Catholic Church”, accepts evolution. Especially Pope Francis.

    But if you start looking at Catholic **individuals**, instead of the official denomination or official label, it’s a whole ‘nuther story. Evolution dominates of course, but you can find some VERY delicious Genesis Creationist action, if you are persistent. Here’s my favorite Catholic Christian writer, he’s from the Kolbe Center:

    “Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?” by Thomas J. Centrella

    So no, I’m not saying that Catholics aren’t Christian. Nor Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Lutherans, etc.
    I merely show that Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity, and let the chips fall where they may.

  • “That needs to be emphasized 100%, maybe 200%.”

    200% of what?

    You really have no idea have you?

  • “Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity”


    (Faith-based) Christianity is incompatible with The (evidence-based) Scientific Theory of Evolution.

    Fixed it for you.

  • So I guess this means you are NOT happy with Dr. Michael Behe recently having a fossil dragonfly species named after him, (which, needless to say, is a genuine legitimate media story, not “phony” at all.)
    Meanwhile, Irreducible Complexity has never been “Just declare God did it.” Irreducible Complexity is always based on what we observe and know, NOT what we haven’t.

    “Irreducible complexity points to design because, first, impersonal evolutionary mechanisms cannot build such structures by direct routes since they are too improbable, and they cannot build such structures by circuitous routes since these lack both plausibility and evidence. On the other hand, we see designers making irreducibly complex objects all the time because they have the advantage of foresight. Again, this is based on what we know—it’s not ‘god of the gaps’ but an inference to the best explanation.

    By contrast, to insist that we should hold out for a natural explanation when the clues so clearly point to an intelligent cause, is like refusing to believe that a dead body containing nine bullet holes points to murder, because “maybe we just haven’t yet figured out the natural explanation.” Nobody charges detectives with believing in a ‘murderer of the gaps’ in such cases, because we know from experience that murderers shoot people and nature does not.”

    — Keaton Halley, creationist from CMI online, “The God-Of-The-Gaps Charge doesn’t Stick”, 07-18-2015.

  • I have no news of it beyond people whose credibility is to be charitable, questionable to say the least. A creationist stating something without any kind of outside corroboration is worthless. As I have been saying before, the belief requires lying by its nature.

    Online bloggers are a pale substitute for credible support for an allegedly scientific theory. Keaton Halley simply has rehashed arguments which were old hat by the 19th Century. The Teleological argument. Not someone worth taking seriously. Below is a link demolishing such arguments.

    David Hume destroyed this argument a century before Darwin was born. Evolution being unnecessary to skewer lazy philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

    It fails for a few reasons. First and foremost the inherent dishonesty in the presentation. Human beings have zero experience creating living things or living structures. To claim one can recognize one as created is simply to assume or worse, make a clearly false declaration. Irreducible complexity is a nonsense phrase to say, “I have no explanation and will say God Did It”

    The dishonesty is the reaction to my statement which is to say, we can’t know how it was created because God did it and is inscrutable. So the initial premise of being able to recognize living structures as created being a complete lie from the start.

  • So, now you are saying that a large portion of Catholics aren’t Christian. Still flinging that around, I see.

    Here is where we are in agreement, except not quite in the way that you would take that statement. If evolution is true, and there is no reason to think it is not, given the sheer amount of evidence there is for it, and the paucity of evidence for your biblical view of things, then there was no Adam, and therefore no Eve, which means original sin is a myth, which means Jesus means nothing.

    Yup. I can see why you wouldn’t want to believe that, and would condemn any Christian as not a real Christian like you if they didn’t.

  • Do you accept the existence of human hunter-gatherers as discovered by anthropologists? I don’t think you can. They did not herd animals or plant crops. Since Cain and Able knew how to do this, their decedents, the hunter-gatherers, would have also known. Their parents Adam and Eve could not have been the first humans.
    Do you deny the body of anthropological data that proves that the first humans were hunter-gatherers?

  • I am a non-believer and can accept your position as long as you understand it is based on faith without evidence. In my opinion it is very remotely possible, but not definitely false. I detest faith and will wait for evidence.

  • With all due respect, Bob, it makes no difference to me whether or not you accept my position.

  • I don’t blame you for saying “put evolution aside”, after what I just posted about evolution vis-à-vis Adam & Eve. No one in this thread has resolved this huge problem; nobody has refuted atheist Zindler’s evolution-based conclusion. So Evolution remains incompatible with Christianity. Readers, take note.

    Meanwhile, you said “There is absolutely no evidence for Adam & Eve.” Hmm. Your claim is multiple-defeated.

    Common-Sense Version: If you trace your family tree, it always looks like a pyramid with ultimately just one man and one woman at the top. So if the names of “All The Humans Who Ever Existed” could be traced online, you know the world’s genealogies would ultimately resemble a giant pyramid with One Man and One Woman at the top. Adam & Eve.

    Modern Biology Version: I have 3 articles that show you how modern genetics bring us to that “One Man and One Woman at the Top.” (The first 2 are short; the last one is long.) You asked for scientific evidence. There’s now enough scientific evidence on the table in which the evolutionists cannot get rid of it all. Adam & Eve.

  • Except for the fact that you are flat out denying it as the basis of your belief and lying about your dependence on it.

    Links and citations to people doing the same dishonest act of misrepresenting religious belief do not help you here. All it tells me is that there are others who are just as immature on the subject.

    So no, your prior response to Canis is the same old dishonest garbage. You do not cite to scientific sources or ones anyone needs to take at face value.

    You would never accept objective proof and evidence which refutes your belief so it is dishonest to claim you ultimately care for objective proof and evidence at all. It is immaterial to your belief, because you believe based on faith and faith alone.

    Creationists are liars by nature. They feel the need to misrepresent facts and make spurious arguments in denial of personal faith All in order to pretend they need to be taken seriously by those who do not have such faith.

    Which also means that Creationist sources cannot be taken seriously given the inherent dishonesty of their position. Unless you have sources outside of that echo chamber, it can be ignored out of hand.

  • “If you trace your family tree, it always looks like a pyramid with ultimately just one man and one woman at the top.”

    Obviously, you never have bothered to trace your family tree, or even think about the subject.

    I had two parents. Together, they had four parents. My grandparents together had eight parents. Their grandparents had 32 grandparents. By the time you go back 25 generations, or roughly 500 years, you have over a MILLION antecedents.

    NOT TWO.

    But let’s take your assertion at face value. Two people at the top of the pyramid. That means, their children were incestuous. Their children were incestuous. Their children were incestuous. Maybe after that, the incest stopped. But given god’s obvious approval of the familial bonds, maybe not.

    You simply don’t think about what you say. But why would you? Someone else did all of your thinking for you.

  • Hmm. You are saying that Irreducible Complexity is just a God-Of-The-Gaps argument, right? But now you see that the “God-of-the-Gaps” gig is based on what we DON’T know and haven’t observed, while Irreducible Complexity is based on what we DO know and have observed.

    So this time you’re defeated. Why? Because even the desperate Evolutionists (like Kenneth Miller, Scott Freeman, Jon Herron) openly claim that unguided Evolution can produce the Irreducible Complexity that is observed in Behe’s biological examples. So yes, even Darwinists are able to physically observe Irreducible Complexity within biological objects, just as much as the Non-Darwinists can! Therefore IC really is based on what we DO know and have observed.

    So your ORIGINAL objection — that Irreducible Complexity is nothing more than a “God of the Gaps” declaration based on what we don’t know and haven’t observed — is now totally smashed. You cannot salvage this one, Spuddie. The End.

  • Well first, let’s show you the pyramid Ben, so you can know what your description looks like.

    See? Your description DOES look like a pyramid. But having said that, a clarification is needed.

    As you said, the bottom of this pyramid would show a “million” antecedents at some point. But that doesn’t mean you can’t rationally derive just One Man and One Woman (Adam & Eve) at the final point of the pyramid. You see, the pyramid decreases (points downward) on you, if you go back far enough. You won’t have a “million originals” anymore, if you go back far enough in time. You’ll have WAY less.

    Both evolutionists and creationists agree that there was a time when the Earth existed but humans did not. (They obviously disagree on how long it was.) So while you had a “MILLION” antecedents at one point, if you’ll go back to the very earliest time, you only had a few human antecedents, no matter what. Only a few. And at each stage, going back in time earlier & earlier, the number of originals would decrease, NOT increase.

    And at the earliest point of the downward pyramid, just from genetics alone, the originals would have to boil down to just one human male, and one human female. Adam and Eve.
    The End.

  • “Ignoring them out of hand” is a convenient response. It saves you from:

    (1) doing your own homework, and

    (2) admitting defeat on a given topic if no evolutionist pushbacks are available.

  • Yes, I do deny it, Bob. Why? Because Adam & Eve and their family, were way smarter than mere “hunter-gatherers.” Yes, they could handle herding & planting, but their brains initially had WAY more ammunition than that. WAY too much for any fake cheap evolutionary sales-pitch.

    As for Adam? Prior to the terrible Fall, Adam was mentally empowered, without any Laptop or Tablet, to name every single animal that God brought in front of him. The Bible says every beast of the field and every bird of the air that God placed in front of him. (Gen. 2:20). (By comparison, go to a big-city zoo today, and try to recite ALL the species’ names in the zoo from memory **alone.**) That’s totally beyond genius IQ, folks. You can’t touch it. Adam & Eve were NOT dummies.

    And Cain? Even though he was a flat-out cursed murderer and sinner, he STILL had enough God-given engineering smarts to build an entire city. (Gen 4:17). His great-great-great-great grandsons were Jabal (livestock expert), Jubal (expert musician, flute and harp), and Tubal-Cain (expert toolmaker, both bronze and iron). (Gen. 4:20-22) So these were some smart humans.

    But the first thing I learned in Anthro 101 is that today’s anthropologists start off their show by uncritically swallowing the “human evolution” sales-pitch, period. They don’t dare rationally or scientifically question it. They put on THOSE sunglasses before doing their science. They know Genesis mentions the existence of very intelligent humans, but they don’t wanna hear it. They prefer the evo-based hunter-gatherer sales-pitch.

  • Even if the stone age humans weren’t as smart as the legendary Adam and Eve, they were on this planet first.

    Evolution is not atheistic, it is just incompatible with fundamentalist Christianity.

  • What homework?

    You are quoting people with no expertise in the subject who think they need to be taken seriously. .

    You are giving this argument because you are too immature and dishonest to grasp the notion that not everyone has to believe as you do.

    What defeat? You already came to the battle of wits unarmed.

    Cut and pastes from well known liars who are just restating arguments which were old hat in the 18th Century is not much of a showing.

    The evidence and research is already there and overwhelmingly supports my view. You simply do not offer a sufficiently credible challenge.

    Your entire argument is dishonest. You deny faith in order to bolster religious belief. You don’t respect the methods needed for objective proof and evidence gathering. So you are incapable of presenting any here.

    BTW there is no such thing as an evolutionist. There are people who have accepted the scientific evidence based framework for interpreting biological research. Which is the majority of people. Then there are lying nutballs who do not, because they are annoyed faith is not convincing to get people to accept their religious beliefs.

  • Still nothing from a news source on that dragonfly. I guess that is just one more untruth Creationists have spun for themselves.

    ” You are saying that Irreducible Complexity is just a God-Of-The-Gaps argument, right?”

    No, its lazier than that. God in the Gaps assumes one is making a good faith effort looking for an answer. Irreducible Complexity is simply argument by stipulation. Declaring something to be the case and doing nothing to support it in logical or evidence based fashion.

    “Irreducible Complexity is based on what we DO know and have observed.”

    No it isn’t. You are lying. No Creationist has ever done legitimate scientific research or observation of their own to support their ideas. They do not respect scientific methodologies enough to do so effectively. If they are not doing research, they are not observing. Only pontificating. Not even doing it well.

    “Because even the desperate Evolutionists (like Kenneth Miller, Scott Freeman, Jon Herron) openly claim that unguided Evolution can produce the Irreducible Complexity that is observed in Behe’s biological examples”

    No actually they haven’t. Irreducible Complexity is not a scientific concept. Nobody has confirmed it. Where are these claims?

    Miller testified against the concepts of Intelligent Design and subjected his view to scrutiny while Behe and company chickened out. Scott Freeman demonstrated how Evolution fits into a process similar to other scientific theories. Herron literally wrote the book on how to introduce Evolution to a lay public.

    So no, you are appealing to authority in a way which lacks credibility. Of course you don’t even point to a source for your claims as well. When one wants to refute accusations of lying, one should make efforts to look honest. You avoid such things.

    So no, you haven’t shown irreducible complexity is an idea which needs to be taken seriously, it is not based on anything other than pontificating and Creationists are not only dishonest, but lazy as well. You declare victory but came with nothing.

  • I can’t understand why anyone takes the two creation stories literally. They contradict each other.

    But don’t take my word for it. In the first account, Genesis 1:24-25 records the creation of the animals followed by the creation of humans in Genesis 1:26.
    In the second account, Genesis 2:7 records the creation of the man, followed by the creation of all the animals and birds in Genesis 2:18-19 and then the creation of the woman in Genesis 2:22. See

    Even the name of the deity is different: Elohim in the first account and YHWH in the second

    If you take these stories literally, they contradict. However, scholars who traced the various parts of Genesis that used the two names, Elohim and YHWH, were able to work out that the Jewish scriptures contain two or more documentary traditions that have been brought together. When this is done, it can help to account for a number of discrepancies in both the creation stories and also in the story of Noah.