Michael Cremo on Coast to Coast AM.
Q: If you had an opportunity to talk with Charles Darwin, if you lived when he lived, you had your theories; he had his. What would you tell him Michael? How would you switch him over?
A: Well, you know, it's kind of interesting. Some people tell me, maybe I'm a reincarnation of Charles Darwin and I've had to take birth again to correct my mistake. But you know actually I have a bit of respect for Charles Darwin because I think he's somewhat different than the people who have taken over his philosophy today and turned it into an ideology. You know he was, he was a very interesting person. He left university. You know, he didn't have a PhD. He didn't finish his undergraduate degree. He was trained actually in theology. That's what he was trained in. That's what he was studying at university. And he went on a voyage on the Beagle and he came to certain ideas about evolution but I think he was a genuine scientist in this sense that I think he would've been prepared to change his ideas. He admitted that there were some problems with his theories. For example, he admitted that the fossil record really didn't support his theories.
Q: And then he began to believe in God too didn't he?
A: Well yes actually. His book Origin of Species went into 6 editions. In the first edition he didn't say too much about God but in the second edition he said, in describing his theory, there is grandeur in this view of life where in the beginning the Creator (with a capital C) breathes life into one or a few kinds of organisms and let the rest evolve. Now there are two things that he says there. One of which I agree with and one of which I don't agree with. The first is that a Creator with a capital C some kind of cosmic intelligence was involved in the origin of life, which he says directly in his book and it's a big embarrassment for the evolutionists today who want to take God completely out of the picture. So it's a big embarrassment to them, but I agree with that part of what he said. I don't believe in his theory of evolution that he outlines in the rest of the book but I think he was a reasonable person. I think that if it was pointed out to him that after 150 years, because he wrote his book Origin of Species 150 years ago, it was published in 1859, I think if he were able to come today and see after 150 years that so much fossil evidence has accumulated that contradicts his theory, I think that he might be willing to change it. But for many of his supporters today, his theory is not so much a scientific idea, but an ideology which cannot be questioned. And it's people like that, you know, his supporters today, who aren't willing to listen to evidence that contradicts their theories, who have now a government enforced monopoly so that their ideas only can be taught in the education systems in most countries in the world including the United States, who really object to what I'm saying. I don't think Darwin himself would object to what I'm saying. I think he'd listen. And, I think, he would be willing to change his ideas in the face of evidence. But many of his supporters today, they don't want to hear evidence that contradicts their theory, they try to suppress that evidence, they try to restrict those who want to speak about that evidence.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
15 comments:
Well said !
The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons. Including Charles Darwin.
It is far from dogmatic.
Jeffery,
What evidence are you talking about? What evidence do you have that Homo sapiens magically and miraculoulsy appeared out of nowhere 195,000 years ago in Ethiopia? What evidence do you have that Homo sapiens did not exist 200,000 years ago?
There is no magical mark you can draw on a timeline and say "this is when [an evolutionary event] occured."
All such dates are estimates and best-fit guesses. Because you are so very fond of quotes, here's the one you refer to:
They conclude the fossils are much older than a 104,000-year-old volcanic layer and very close in age to a 196,000-year-old layer...
That's how they get the numbers. By looking.
Jeffery,
"There is no magical mark you can draw on a timeline and say 'this is when [an evolutionary event] occured.'"
So you disagree with the evolutionist claim that man magically appeared 195,000 years ago?
"All such dates are estimates and best-fit guesses."
Guesses are best left to theologians and metaphysicians. They have no place in exact science.
"That's how they get the numbers. By looking."
They need to look harder because the evidence shows Homo sapiens are over 500 million years old.
I'm speechless. But my fingers still work.
"Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago..."
Cremo is absolutely right. There were never any wars or greed before Darwin published the Origin.
Thank Vishnu that he brought this to light.
Yeah, it's true the fossil record has all been exposed. You might remember that we've dug up every fucking animal that ever died and then carefully replaced all the ground, trees and shopping malls. Anyone who says the fossil record doesn't show transition of just the sort Darwin, Gould and Myers describe is either smoking something or a self-deluded religionist nutball.
"Cremo is absolutely right."
The new consensus agrees.
"There were never any wars or greed before Darwin published the Origin."
Nice straw man argument that has nothing to do with Michael Cremo.
"You might remember that we've dug up every fucking animal that ever died and then carefully replaced all the ground, trees and shopping malls."
LOL.
"Anyone who says the fossil record doesn't show transition of just the sort Darwin, Gould and Myers describe is either smoking something or a self-deluded religionist nutball."
Transition from amoeba to man? Transition from unconscious to conscious? Transition from sightless animal to animal with eyes? Transition from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens? Um, no.
So we can add "Evolution Denialist" to your resume, then?
Absolutely.
I'd rather deny an outmoded and empirically falsified nineteenth century hypothesis than deny all non-white history, anthropology, and archaeology because it's not racially pure according to early 20th century German purity laws.
"The case in point is the origin of the human race. By either Von Daniken's approach or by Sitchin's, Occam's Razor argues that the single hypothesis of earlier alien contact with extraterrestrials to explain the wonders of the ancient world and the remarkable agreement among ancient texts in speaking of visitation by "the gods" should be prefered to the multitude of separate and ad hoc explanations others have offered. If mainstream science were not so preoccupied with avoiding extraordinary hypotheses, it would surely be agreed by most parties that the evidence, severely lacking though it is, mildly favors the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis over most others. However, it cannot be argued that the evidence is anything approaching compelling, especially since it is all indirect (i.e., no definite extraterrestrial artifacts have been found). And since the hypothesis is certainly extraordinary, science prefers to reject it until and unless some extraordinary proof comes along. But what if the hypothesis were true, but most of the evidence has been destroyed?" -- Tom Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
So we can add "Evolution Denialist" to your resume, then?
Absolutely.
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
-Richard Dawkins, genius
"I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he's going about it. I don't deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He's convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists because they don't want to be atheists. I'm strongly against him on that question. It's simply not true what he's saying, and it's not only not true but also harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There's absolutely nothing that stops you from being both. I disagree totally. He has the arrogance to say that anyone who does not share his views is infected with a virus. No wonder he cannot coexist peacefully with them." -- Freeman Dyson, physicist, September 29th 2007
"Anyone who says the fossil record doesn't show transition of just the sort Darwin, Gould and Myers describe is either smoking something or a self-deluded religionist nutball."
That is funny. So which camp will you chose? Darwin posited smooth gradual change and, if I recall correctly, said that his theory would fall if the record showed an absence of such smooth, gradual change. Gould on the other hand, admitted that the geological record does shows something very different and helped give that something a nifty name - punctuated equilibrium. But in spite of the nifty name, the flavor of evolution Darwin posited and the (non)equilibrium that gets "punctuated" is another. You cannot have both. As far as the fossil record goes, there is nothing smooth or gradual about either the beginning of the Cambrian or the End of the Mesozoic. And where Darwin's writing reveals genuine intellectual horsepower paying careful attention to nature, Gould's arguments sometimes seem to consist more of philosophical verbage than of a sincere effort to let nature speak. (I saw Gould speak twice and he practically foamed.)
There is no perfect "Principia Biologica", no Olympian Statistical Mechanics of Life... that puts biology on the same footing as, say, orbital mechanics or quantum-electro-dynamics. This is not to say that there will never be one. Only that if one is possible, it is a long way off.
Kenneth Hsu is a mighty fine Geologist who led some historic deep sea drilling cruises. He looks at the great mass extinction events not as proof of the principle of "survival of the fittest" but as evidence of a different principle: "survival of a lucky few."
There is room for both criticism and praise of Darwin's theories. One can acknowledge the beauty and power of it while also wondering if there are still not helpful "ghosts in the machine."
I am very wary of scientific estimation of dates for the reason that most scientists are above knowing electricity or studying the effects of plasma and electrical discharge. I agree with those who say that the discharges that appear to have happened, in the recent past, will have created masses of new elements at the sites where catastophe has occurred. This will be in the region of all those buried items so suddenly killed that their eating habits can be evidenced. Use of dating assumes that there has been a steady state without catastrophic change! Events are therefore nearer than those dates set forth, something OIM knows very well!
Is it possible that evolutionary change, hastened by electrical discharge, with consequent radiation from X-rays at least, meant that Neandertal and CroMagnon became Sapiens?
Why do we so neglect CroMagnon?
Diatreme,
Excellent comment and I thank you for it.
Post a Comment