Home » Intelligent Design » Darwinism and popular culture: Seattle DOESN’T love Lucy? Oh, … how could they not?

Darwinism and popular culture: Seattle DOESN’T love Lucy? Oh, … how could they not?

Whodathunkit?? The Lucy (yer granny was an ape!!) exhibition is not a big draw, even in Seattle.

A friend writes:

“I actually went to see Lucy yesterday and it was very revealing. Not only was I underwhelmed with the incompleteness of Lucy’s skeleton, but I was struck with the admissions from the video playing with Donald Johansen admitting that he found Lucy’s bones over the course of an entire hillside, and that if there were one more rainstorm, her bones may have been washed away never to be seen again. So what happened in the prior rainstorm to transport her bones from somewhere else? This makes me skeptical that Lucy represents one individual, or one anything. Who really knows.”

Look, basically,”Lucy” is a cultural artifact. She didn’t need to exist, really. She just needed to serve a purpose at a certain time – to convince people that materialism is true and religions, including Christianity, are living on borrowed time.

Of course, that’s nonsense, but it’s elite nonsense, so we must defer to it, I suppose, and pay taxes to support it.

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist

Darwinism and popular culture: The point of his theory is – surprise, surprise – a No God religion

The Cambrian explosion: Why Darwinism is just propaganda for a worldview you do not really want

Don’t believe in God? Doubt Darwin anyway? No problem, thank … Richard Dawkins!

Message to Darwinists: Quit lying about Darwin’s racism. It is .not doing you any good

By the way, this is the real Lucy (of “I love Lucy”) and I have no time for anyone who doesn’t love her.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

8 Responses to Darwinism and popular culture: Seattle DOESN’T love Lucy? Oh, … how could they not?

  1. Nice, nice. I haven’t had much respect for Lucy. I actually read in an article that they did some sort of 3D x-rays or something and found out it’s likely that the had wrists like an ape.

    Of course, they probably won’t tell you that. But a least they admitted to finding her spread over an entire hillside. That kind of sinks most of their case. Who’s to say the bones even go together?

  2. *EDIT

    Meant to say:

    “I actually read in an article that they did some sort of 3D x-rays or something and found out it’s likely that she had wrists like an ape.”

  3. I am firmly convinced that no theory of human evolution can be regarded as satisfactory unless the revelations of Piltdown are taken into account. ~ Arthur Keith

  4. I recall seeing Johansen and Richard Leakey on Nova years ago discussing the Lucy fossil, and debating (or was it just arguing like in the Monty Python skit?) about where Lucy fit in the evolutionary chain. Johansen had his tree of life poster not surprisingly showing Lucy in the main trunk leading to modern humans. Leakey, of course, disagreed, his rendition showing Lucy on a dead-end branch. No actual evidence was ever presented or even discussed in support of their respective positions, just two conflicting opinions. I was almost embarrassed for them. It must have been in the seventies, maybe early eighties when it aired. Anyone else recall seeing it?

  5. This is the second attempt to commercialize Lucy that has flopped. The first was a number of years ago when a “First Family” set of dolls was introduced. “I can’t understand why they’re not selling”, said the famous paleontologist who dresses like a giant boy scout, “The little baby Australopithecus is so cute.”

  6. Well I’ve posted this several times in the past already both here and elsewhere and never get any responses; curiously, no one seems to realize the import.

    But I’ll say it again : Lucy was debunked and discarded in 1999 by the French magazine Science et Vie (issue 980). They did a cover story called “Adieu Lucy” with about 10 pages of scientific research and evidence by some highly respected scientists that demonstrated that Lucy was, in fact, no human ancestor.

    Yet here we are in the supposedly advanced West still hearing the same old hype, BS and propaganda over poor defunct Lucy.

    Don’t American scientists read anything but their own studies?

    Or, does the fact that the French scientists published Lucy’s demise 10 years ago – and that the US sci-community still doesn’t get it – mean that both Darwinists and IDists in the West are ignorant of what’s going on in the rest of the world?

    Or does it mean that our beloved Darweens have suppressed the information on Lucy?

    Well that would be a surprise huh! ;-)

  7. What does Darwin’s contextual racism have to do with the scientific (or not) basis of evolution?

  8. I read two or three of D. Carl Johansen’s books (ghost written, I think) and learned several interesting things about The Theory, including what he thought was the best arguments for it. A professor with a group of paleontology students were at a dig in East Africa. The prof was describing his theory of how and why apes descended from the trees and a student asked how he knew that any of what he was saying was true. His evidence was “Got a better explanation?” and “We’re here aren’t we?”

    To date a specimen that he found, D. Carl send in samples taken from volcanic ash above and below the specimen. Two came back with ages within the range (3.8 to 4.2 million year) that he had determined by sight, I guess. The third was 12 million years. “Well, that can’t be right” and that sample was tossed.

    Johansen can also wake up at night anywhere in the world and instantly know what time it is. With clocks arount for only a few seconds of evolutionary time, I’d like to know how that ability evolved.

Leave a Reply