what's your take on current establishment explanation of men's evolution which place the homo sapiens sapiens in around 100,000 BC?
what about the highly contradictory evidence that debunks some of the "intermediary" species during our evolution through fossils records and understanding of circumstances during many of the establishment so called "discoveries'?
Are you familiar with Cremo's work?
Ok, well i can't be authoritative about Cremo's stuff, as i've only limited knowledge of it, based on one book, but what i think is that Cremo’s credo falls short genuine science because he tends to gravitate towards complex contentious claims rather than building those claims upon simpler hypothosis. It’s apparoach ‘Forbidden Archaeology’ also uses many outdated sources, which for someone claiming a work is pretty unacceptable.
I think one of it’s central thesis is an attempt to charaturise the scentific ‘esablishment’ as in some way conspiritorial, it’s an approach shared by creationism too, and i guess it's this latter idea that your trying to shift the debate towards.
That’s not to say i’m against the slaughtering of bloated, theoretical, sacred cows, but the de-bunking of such has to be
rigerous in an age of scepticism that sometimes borders cynicism.
Evolution isn’t necessarily to be viewed as some far flung accademic understanding of the world, on the contrary,
hybridized organisms form the basis of our everyday existance-foods such as wheat, tomatoes etc are specifically selected
to be useful to us, and that selection process is easily observed, just as the owners of dogs select preferences in order to
create a new breed-you can see that biological process at work, but instead of being selected for suitability to a specific environment, instead it’s human agancy which brings about the change.
As religion has been painted into a corner by modernity, creationism has tried to kick against that modernity by undermining it, rather than seeing-as catholicism for example did with Darwins revolution, scripture as alagorical (the catholic church was actually laid back about it’s conclusion). The debate regarding creationism and evolution is over, it was over by the late 19th century.
It’s a difficult dance that religion now has to do, it either refutes modernity and scientific rationalism, or allows scripture and belief to be seen as flexible, if it chooses the latter it can then bend with secular evidence. Either way it has problems, but the obvious problem with literalism (and it never is literal, but as a shorthand the idea is useful) is that you’re endlessly fighting battles that you simply can’t win.