"Ardi" is Bad Science

Origin science (trying to discover where we come from, how the earth began, etc.) is a tricky endeavor. Neither of the two major camps in the conversation are unable to prove definitively how anything came into existence.

Evolutionary scientists cannot recreate the Big Bang in a lab, nor can they recreate any primordial soup or massive shock capable of bring nonliving matter to life.

Creationists cannot recreate the divine hand or voice of God in order to simulate their belief that God created everything in 6 literal days.

BOTH camps require significant amounts of faith to believe or follow! Evolution places the fullness of their faith in a non-intelligent, non-biased process that randomly eliminates the weak and evolves over millions of years. Creationism places their faith in an all-knowing, all-powerful, just, holy and perfect God that divinely created all of life and intentionally ordered all of its processes (as revealed in Scripture). COnsidering the ordered nature of the universe (earth's seasons, life cycles, the human body, gravity, orbital patterns, etc.) it seems to me that evolution and all its claims of randomness takes more faith than an intelligent, intentional Creator!
NOTE: There is a third camp - Intelligent Design - that is quite similar to creationism. They claim that life originated in a creator, but who that is and how it happened is still up for debate.

Since Evolutionary scientists cannot recreate the origin of anything, they are searching for the "missing link" - the transitional creature that is a hybrid (of sorts) of two totally different species, but connects the two genetically. The hope in finding such a link is that it will prove that man has evolved from another species. If they can find that, then it will be the foundation for their argument that all of life evolved from nonliving matter into what we see today.

This is why science's latest discovery "Ardi" (short for Ardipithecus ramidus) is causing such a stir. Evolutionary scientists are calling this the most significant find in evolutionary/biological sciences. There are problems with their so-called conclusions and reports, though.

1. The premise/hypothesis in which they work from will only allow for one conclusion.

2. This sort of science is less about reporting findings and more about taking a few, limited bone samples and drawing (or inferring) definite conclusions. For example, from the handful of bones they found of Ardi they have concluded that she walked upright, climbed trees (but didn't swing from them), and was ape-like (though they are unwilling to call her an ape or a human). The bulk of the scientific findings is gathered from digital recreations and not the actual fossils.

3. Reports are from a select few in the world of science and many within the field do not agree with their conclusions.

So who or what is "Ardi" then? According to Answers in Genesis:

Given the number and scope of the papers presented this week on Ardi, it will take some time before creationists are confident in our conclusions on Ardi and her kin. Based on our first look, however, the facts seem solidly behind the idea that Ardi was a quadrupedal ape with relatively little in common with humans (i.e., no more than most apes); the key basis for the alleged Ardi–human link (which even the authors are hesitant to confirm) is the idea that it walked upright—an idea that even evolutionists have criticized. And we can’t forget that all of these conclusions are inferred from digital reconstructions and fallible reconstructions of bones that were in very bad shape. Without having a live “Ardi” to observe, scientists will only ever be able to come to probabilistic conclusions about its characteristics.

To read more about this check out the following links:

A FANTASTIC ARTICLE FROM CREATION SCIENCE (ABOUT "ARDI")

ABC NEWS REPORT ON CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE CONCERNING ARDI

Want to join the conversation? Click here to comment or ask a question!

Pic borrowed from MSNBC.
________________