Jonathan Clarke wrote:
>Livingstone's "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders" mentions Winchall, he also
>lists Wheadon, M'Causland, Torrey (a contribuitor to "The Fundamentals"),
>and Ambrose Fleming (a founder of the evoution protest movement in
>Britain) as late 19th and early 20th century supporters of Preadamism.
Here's the rub. And I will just use Pearce as an example. i would have to
examine the other writers in detail. Pearce writes (after deriding
Wellhausen): In contrast anthropologists have been willing to learn. In
the face of facts, they have abandoned the following theories: (skipping a)
"b. That man is descended from Monkeys. One is still asked 'Do you believe
we descended from monkeys?' The questioner is surprised at the answer, 'No
anthropologist now believes this.' The present position is that apes,
monkeys, tarsiers, lemurs, and tree shrews were not our direct ancestors."
That is the first radical departure from reality. While Pearce recognizes
preadmites, they gracefully disappear before Adam comes on the scene. So
while the fossil record is replete with fossil men, still he finds a way
that we all can be descendent from Adam who he correctly places in the Near
East, but at about 12,000 years ago at the upper edge of feasibility.
What I have not found is a willingness to recognize that Adam is a late
entry into the human race, not our common ancestor. That will pare down
the list of authors considerably.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 18:03:45 EDT