Question: I am a student
at Ohio State University and I need
to write a paper about human
evolution for one of my classes.
The paper is about the pros
and cons of teaching human
evolution in public schools.
I was wondering if you know of
any Peer Reviewed articles
i.e. in scientific journals that
challenge the current theories
of evolution. If you do, would
you be able to e-mail me
any information. Thank you.
Answer:At the
present moment anti-evolution views are not
very popular among scientists,
and are therefore not often
found in peer-reviewed journals.
But perhaps even more
significant is that there
are no articles in peer-reviewed journals
that actually support the
current theories of evolution. The
current theory is based
on molecular biology and genetics.
Genes code for proteins,
and changes in genes supposedly
result in different proteins
being produced in different ways
that change the structure
of organisms on the biomolecular
level. The idea is that
by natural selection, the biomolecular
changes that confer some
advantage are preserved and those
that don't are not preserved.
Supposedly, this process can
result in new structures.
So if evolution is true, one should be
able to show step by step
how complex features of living things
(such as the eye, the immune
system, etc.) have come about
in a step by step fashion
on the biomolecular level. If one can't
do this, then one hasn't
shown in a scientific way that evolution
actually happens. It becomes
merely an article of scientific faith.
Biochemist Michael Behe says:
"In the past ten years Journal
of Molecular Evolution has
published more than a thousand
papers. Of these, about one
hundred discussed the chemical
synthesis of molecules thought
to be necessary for the
origin of life, about fifty proposed
mathematical models to improve
sequence analysis, and
about eight hundred were
analyses of sequences. There
were zero papers discussing
detailed models for intermediates
in the development of complex
biomolecular structures. This is
not a peculiarity of JME.
No papers are to be found that discuss
detailed models for intermediates
in the development of
complex biomolecular structures,
whether in the Proceedings
of the National Academy
of Science, Nature, Science, the
Journal of Molecular
Biology or, to my knowledge, any science
journal." Behe 1998,
p. 183.
"The idea of Darwinian molecular
evolution is not based on
science. There is no publication
in the scientific literature—in
journals or books—that describes
how molecular evolution
of any real, complex,
biochemical system either did occur or
even might have occurred.
There are assertions that
such evolution occurred,
but absolutely none are supported
by pertinent experiments
or calculations." Behe 1998, p. 183
Behe, Michael J. (1998) Intelligent
design theory as a tool
for analyzing biochemical
systems. In William A. Dembski,
ed. Mere Creation: Science,
Faith, and Intelligent Design.
Downers Grove, Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, pp. 177-194.
He makes the same point in
his book Darwin's
Black Box.
There can be found in peer
reviewed journals articles that
contain evidence contradicting
the theory of evolution, but
the articles will not be
presented as being anti-evolutionary.
In my book Forbidden
Archeology, I have presented lots
of evidence from peer-reviewed
journals that contradicts
the current theory of human
evolution.
Also, we have to keep in
mind that scientific ideas are formed
not just on the basis of
articles in peer-reviewed journals, but
by papers published in peer
reviewed conference proceedings
volumes and in books putting
forth scientific concepts. After all,
Darwin didn't publish his
theory of evolution in a peer-reviewed
journal. He published it
in a book. So I think you can look at
books like Darwin's
Black Box by Michael Behe, Icons
of
Evolution
by Jonathan Wells, and Mere
Creation, edited by
William
A. Dembski. And from those books you can see how
the authors extract information
from peer-reviewed scientific
journals that contradicts
the theory of evolution.
I have recently had a paper
contradicting the current theory
of human evolution published
in a peer reviewed conference
proceedings volume. The
paper is called Puranic Time and
the
Archaeological Record, and it can be found in Time and
Archaeology, edited by Tim
Murray, published by Routledge,
London (1999).
I hope this gets you started
in a helpful direction. You could
also look at the www.icr.org
website.
Sincerely yours,
Michael A. Cremo
Question: Hi.
I was wondering if you reject
the evolutionary model in its entirety or is
there anything to be salvaged
from it?
Would you consider evolution
to be basically false or is there another
possibility, perhaps such
as that the time-line of evolution to be a subset
in a larger series of cycles,
rather like that which is described in a Vedic
worldview?
I really enjoy your work
and consider it very provocative.
Must we throw Darwinism
away?
Thank you very much,
Answer: The parts
of Darwinism related to what is called "microevolution" could
remain. This is the part
of evolution that relates to changes within
species. Everyone knows
that if you selectively breed cats for example, you
can get them to change in
a certain direction, although they always remain
cats. But the idea of macroevolution
by Darwinian processes would have to
be jettisoned. In the Vedic
worldview there is a kind of macroevolution
that takes place, but not
by the Darwinian process. In the Darwinian
process, the first living
thing, a simple cell, is said to self-organize
from chemicals. No one has
ever demonstrated how that can happen in any
detailed way. In the Vedic
worldview there is also a first living thing.
But it is not the simplest
living thing, it is the most complex. The first
living thing is the demigod
Brahma, who is manifested directly from God. It
is Brahma's duty to populate
the universe. He accomplishes this by an
evolutionary process, but
it is not Darwinian. By evolution in general, we
mean reproduction with modification.
Darwinists assert that this can happen
by random genetic changes
that produce changes in the physical form of the
organism. But they have
never demonstrated exactly how this occurred in the
case of any particular species.
They do have some little bits and pieces of
the puzzle, but they have
never explained the exact process, the exact
sequence of genetic changes,
for any particular species, therefore we are
simply asked to accept that
it happened because they say it happened. In
the Vedic
worldview, there is also a process of reproduction and
modification. It is said
that Brahma produces some mental sons from his
mind. And then he also produces
the first sexual reproducing pair (Manu
and Shatarupa). Manu and
Shatarupa produce sons and daughters. The
daughters are given in marriage
to the mental sons of Brahma (they are
great mystic yogis). They
begin to have children. These are all existing on
the demigod level.
One of these beings is called Daksa. He has many
daughters, who are married
to various sages and demigods, and by their
reproductive processes,
they produce all the various kinds of living things
of our earthly experience.
In producing these kinds, they make use of bijas
("seeds") provided by God
to Brahma. These seeds contain the forms of body
plans. So you might say
it is an intelligently guided evolutionary
progression, beginning from
the most complex living entity and working down
from there. Of course, this
is just a sketch, but I hope it will give you
some idea. The process is
repeated over and over again in the
course of cyclical time.
All this is the topic of my next book, which
I hope to have out in a
year or two.
Sincerely yours,
Michael A. Cremo
______________________________________________________
ANOMALOUS DISCOVERIES
Dear Friend…..I guess you
are my friend, I have no enemies.
About 5 years ago a friend
came across of metal arrowhead that
was embedded in a petrified
nautilus shell. The only part
sticking out was the tang
in the rear of the head. He spent
several days in his spare
time chipping it out and had it
completely out before I
knew what he was doing. I would have
stopped him if I could have.
At any rate it is about 2 ½ or 3
inches long and about ¾
to 1 inch wide at the widest point.
It appeared to have been
cast and had holes in the cetner with
designs in the metal.
I want to get a picture and even make a
casting of it when I get
the chance. I would like to find someone
who could identify it. I assumed it was probably a Viking point.
Or perhaps European.
The mystery to me is that if my limited
knowledge of geology is
correct, then if something is petrified,
then it has to predate the
age when man had the capabilities
to cast metal. If
this is true, how could an iron arrowhead be
shot into nautilus shell
when the arrowhead was produced
millions of years after
the shell was alive? The point was
found in a creek around
Fredericksberg, Texas……Could you
lead me in a direction of
of someone who could identify it?
Michael Cremo responds:
I don’t know anyone personally
who is expert in Viking
things, but I can, as you say, point
you in a direction that
might lead you to someone. You can
check out the web site at
http://www.pastforward.co.uk/vikings/
It is a Viking studies research
site, with lots of links to Viking
research pages, museums,
etc. Meanwhile, if I run into any
qualified person, I will
let you know.
Editors note: Are there any Viking experts out there?
Send us your stories about
those anomalous skeletons
The information presented
here is not necessarily endorsed
To SUBSCRIBE, send a blank
email to:
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank
email to:
discovered in the back yard!
We are looking for solid,
well-documented evidence,
but all accounts are welcome.
Send to: 
by Michael Cremo or the
Forbidden Archeology Newsflash
editor. All material
is shared in the spirit of open and free
inquiry to our unique cadre
of evolution revolutionaries.
Newparadigms-subscribe@topica.com
newparadigms-unsubscribe@topica.com.