The National Geographic Channel aired on April 11, 2003 the “Journey Of Man” documentary which explored the evolution of language by misrepresenting the findings of philology. In this present article we refute this evolutionist position.
The National Geographic Channel aired on April 11, 2003 the “Journey Of Man” documentary which explored the evolution of language by misrepresenting the findings of philology. In this present article we refute this evolutionist position.
Speech’s Development By Evolution Error
An African tribe, said to be primitive, was introduced and its language was accordingly deemed primeval, basing this claim on tongue movements when pronouncing certain words.
This was an erroneous assertion for philological research refutes the existence of primeval languages anywhere on earth. Philologists contend that even the least advanced tribes have very much complex languages, because what makes them so is not the “sound” they make but the intelligible formation of a series of words which then make sense. This feature called to be “syntax” is a distinguishing factor which separates man from all other living species. When it is analyzed it surprises with its sheer structural complexity. Evolutionist Derek Bickerton, professor of philology at Hawaii University, admits the impossibility of language’s evolution in the face of the syntax’s complexity with the following words:
Syntax must have emerged in one piece, at one time – the most likely cause being some kind of mutation that affected the organization of the brain. Since mutations are due to chance, and beneficial ones are rare, it is implausible to hypothesize more than one such mutation gave rise to our species. (Derek Bickerton, Language and Species, The University of Chicago Press, 1992, p.190) (The term “beneficial mutation” in this quotation is an expression of the author’s biased evolutionist views. In reality no mutation improves the genetic make-up and therefore a “beneficial mutation” has never been observed.)
Bickerton’s words are sufficient by themselves to negate the evolution theory by the fact of the faculty of speech humankind possesses. The immediate formation of this incomparable brain composition without a transitory form cannot be explained by coincidental mutations, the only improving factor in evolution. This then confirms that the brains advent is not an accident but an act of conscious design or creation. The immediate and complete arrival of syntax proves that language was an act of sudden creation without an evolutionary process.
In truth there is no available data in support of the theory of language evolution. Statements to the effect of language’s evolution are based entirely on speculation rather than data as noted in the following current article by the renowned philologists Chomsky and Fitch:
The empirical study of the evolution of language is beset with difficulties. Linguistic behavior does not fossilize, and a long tradition of analysis of fossil skull shape and cranial endocasts has led to little consensus about the evolution of language. (Marc D. Hauser, Noam Chomsky, W. Tecumseh Fitch, “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?”, SCIENCE, Volume 298, Number 5598, Issue of 22 Nov 2002, pp. 1569-1579.)
The Intellectual Capacity Of The Jaw Bone In The Cave
A single jawbone reclaimed from a cave, with the rest of the scull missing and pronounced to belong to primitive man, was shown in this documentary. In the face of its form’s similarity to modern man, its likeness was acknowledged, but nevertheless it was remarked that the owner of the bone was “of a lesser intelligence”. This was determined to be so without any supporting evidence other than a few stone arrowheads found in the cave. That this approach is flawed is self-explanatory. There is no scientific value in a judgment which determines a with his physical characteristics modern man to be of “primitive” intelligence just because his jawbone was found in a cave.
Evolution: A Secular Religion
So why is it that evolution is continued to be portrayed as true despite all the scientific data to the contrary? Because evolution offers people a secular way of life. For this reason some media organizations still make it subject to their propaganda. The famous philosopher Michael Ruse set out to explain in an article published last month that the theory of evolution, within its own dynamics, represents an alternative way of life to the theistic religions’:
There is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am saying that this popular evolutionism--often an alternative to religion--exists. (Michael Ruse, “Is Evolution a Secular Religion?,” SCIENCE, Volume 299, Number 5612, Issue of 7 Mar 2003, pp. 1523-1524.)
This is the true purpose of defending the evolution theory; to make the denial of Almighty God’s creation easier by concealing the truth with deception. But all these efforts are doomed in the light of correct and objective interpretation of scientific data.
