01.24.07
More Censorship to Creationism?
The internet has been such an asset for me in regard to research. However, I have realized that even among all the helpful information available over the internet, the internet is not without censorship and those who want to censor information (see the importance of network neutrality). I have already encountered the opposition to alternative or natural medicine on the net, and have also seen some sites that are opposed to Christian views. More recently, I have found another site which appears to be censoring information on “Creationism.” My son recently posted a section in Wikipedia regarding the neanderthal under the “popular culture” section. Due to the intolerance to the opposing view of the “theory” of evolution, his post was “removed.” A pitiful explanation given was that they didn’t need more Creationist views, so they would prefer to just “note” or “mention” that there is opposition by Creationists to the evolutionary model. Where is the freedom to express ideas? Is it not more “logical” and “fair” to present all views and let the reader decide which they feel has the better explanation? Rather than argue with those bigots, I’ll just post my son’s article here. At least this way, this information is still available on the net for those who seek truth and are willing to consider other possibilities before coming to a conclusion.
Just as I’m typing this my son just informed me that someone put his Creation article on neanderthal back up at Wiki. . .(with a goofy biased comment regarding it’s content, but oh well, cripes. Seems they’re scrambling to find stuff to refute it, which is fine. Just leave the article up for consideration. I’m just gonna post in here, too, just in case someone takes it off again. . . grrr).
~~~In Creation Media~~~~
see also creationism
Creation scientists have put forth several alternative views to the identity of the Neanderthals. These theories and beliefs are primarily from the young earth creationism camp. These views are not held by the scientific community[I differ with this comment from my son's. There are bonafide scientists who DO believe in the young earth model]. One which holds no basis in the scientific evidence is the argument that Neanderthals are not of the group ”Homo”, but rather belong to the category of apes. Other Creationists, such as with the Answers in Genesis Institute state that Neanderthals were fully human, along with categories such as Cro-Magnon, but unlike the full ape australopithecines. (Anthropology and Apeman Questions and Answers). According to some, diseases such a rickets caused the unusual shapes of the bones. An additional factor to disease may have been undue stress on the jaw, since the Neanderthals were likely to have used their mandibles as tools. This theory is put forth in the book by the author, Marvin L. Lubenow, entitled ”Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils”. The Creationists who support the full humanity of Neanderthals as ”Homo sapiens neanderthalensis,” or even as ”Homo sapiens sapiens,” use as support the find that Neanderthal DNA is 99.5% to 99.9% identical to modern humans. They point out that 99.9 percent is the same percentage similarity as between any two modern humans National Geographic.
Another view is proposed by author and webmaster Dr. Jack Cuozzo, which contends that Neanderthals were fully human individuals who lived to extreme age. Jack Cuozzo homesite. His book Buried ”Alive: The Startling, Untold Story About Neanderthal Man” gives details to his researching a number of original Neanderthal skulls. His theory states that the unusual skeletal shapes are due to the life-long outward growth exhibited by the bones of humans. Long life is also used to explain in part the great deal of injuries that appear to have been sustained by the individuals. Under this view, the Neanderthals would have been physically superior to modern humans due to them having been closer to the creation, and therefore having been less degenerated from the “fall” than modern humans. Attesting to this view is the apparent strength and dexterity described in CNN of the Neanderthals, as well as their greater cranial capacity. Under the Cuozzo theory, all modern humans are 100% descended from the Neanderthals. The proponents of the full human views generally accuse evolutionists of ignoring or downplaying physical evidence of the Neanderthals’ technological sophistication, due to evolutionists not wishing to compromise their “dogmatic” paradigm. (Those Sophisticated Cave Men). The purpose of these Creationist theories is to attempt to fit them into the early Biblical accounts of people living past nine hundred years. This would place the neanderthals in the period before Noah’s flood as well as in the period shortly thereafter. Noah, who lived to be 950 years old according to the Bible, would have been a Neanderthal, as would Adam (930 years) and Methuselah (969 years).
