With all of the talk about science, students of evolution have conveniently omitted to do any with human evolution: we have a crackpot Darwinization of human emergence, with no good evidence to back it up, as a theory of natural selection (the evidence for ‘evolution’ in general is, of course, very good).
These Darwinian crackpots defend themselves by calling critics crackpots, and let the reigning paradigm look official when the academic crackpots pronounce on the subject. The academic crackpots exhibit a unique stupidity but seem to exude the aura of intelligent expertise.
The emergence of man is very complex: the Darwinian oversimplification is almost criminal in its abuse of fake science.
The Limits of Observation Darwinian speculation greatly underestimates
the difficulty of observing evolution, and tends to substitute assumptions
about natural selection for the hard work of observing evolution in
action. Once we really begin to observe ‘evolution’ we see that it is a
non-random process that stands out against the backdrop of deep time.
Observing Speciation? The Hurricane Argument (inset box) shows
the problem with ‘jungle surface’ observations of life (the source
for Darwin/Wallace of their theories). That surface suggests natural
selection. But the reality of speciation is ‘seen’ only over millions of
years in diverse sections of a global environment. Not surprising the
problem is confusing.
The problem of evidence is especially critical in the case of the descent
of man whose emergence is a mystery still unresolved by the speculative
assumptions of current reductionist science. Further, man is still a mystery
even to himself, what to say of how this mystery evolved. The facts working
biologists themselves have uncovered don’t inspire confidence in the
Darwinian interpretation. The appearance of man is uncomfortably sudden
in the reckoning of periods enforced by the evidence we have.