Please note that links will take you directly to the source. AiG is not responsible for content on the news websites to which we refer.

1. Penn State Live: No Hobbits in this Shire: Researchers say skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors

Two years ago, scientists discovered skeletal remains on an Indonesian island that were hailed as evidence of a new hominid species, Homo floresiensis. For example, National Geographic announced Hobbit-Like Human Ancestor Found in Asia. But now, an international research team has announced that no, this is not a human ancestor at all (which we already pointed out a year-and-a-half ago), and that instead, the skull of LB1 (the only fairly complete skeleton) is small because of a condition called microcephaly. The features of the skull are similar to the facial features of those who currently live on the island, and the other skeletal remains found similarly show no evidence of being fundamentally different from the skeletons of the Pygmies who live there today.

Coral Ridge Ministries: The Truth About Darwinism

This weekend, you’ll want to watch a fascinating documentary from Dr. D. James Kennedy and Coral Ridge Ministries called Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. According to their website, the documentary “looks into the chilling social impact of Darwin’s theory of evolution—and the mounting evidence that Darwin had it wrong on the origin of life.”

Many experts are featured in the documentary, including AiG’s Ken Ham, along with Ann Coulter, author of Godless; Ian Taylor, author of In the Minds of Men.

The program delves into the connection between Darwinian evolution and some of the past centuries’ terrible legacies, including Hitler and the Nazis, eugenics, abortion and the current crises in American classrooms.

The special airs at different times on August 26 and 27, 2006, across the US on The Coral Ridge Hour (you can find stations and schedules here).

Readers of this website will note the emphasis on Intelligent Design toward the end of the program. For our perspective on this topic, please see Intelligent design: is it intelligent; is it Christian?

That said, this is definitely television worth watching.

Once again, we see that a “human ancestor” has lost that status.

2. CNN: A 92-year-old's Adam and Eve story

It’s sad to read this story of 92-year-old Laura Lipari, who authored Gramma Shares Her Faith, a Q&A-format book about Adam and Eve. Although the book is supposed to contain “answers,” the CNN article notes that Lipari “sidestepped the debate of whether the Bible is literally true or a story meant to teach moral values;” she instead responded with, “Call it what you will … Do we believe some of the things that Darwin taught? Yes.”

If you’re looking for uncompromising children’s resources, check out the Children’s section of the Answers Bookstore.

3. National Geographic News: Stem Cells Grown Without Destroying Human Embryos, Scientists Say

Researchers have developed a new technique that allows the harvesting of embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. This sounds like encouraging news on the surface, because this could supposedly allow the use of embryonic stem cells without destroying any human lives (in embryo form)—that is, if the use of embryonic stem cells proves to be better than the use of adult or umbilical cord stem cells, which present fewer ethical problems (for instance, what could become of the cell(s) that was retrieved from the embryo) and have been used more successfully. There are many questions that need to be answered: Does anyone know what effects this process may have on the embryo? And is this just another way to use aborted embryos, but make it sound less immoral? Is the process dangerous to the embryo and, thus, could cause the death of a human being? After all, life begins at conception. Should humans even consider using embryos for such an experimental purpose—or is this just experimenting with human life?

However, even if this new technique is adopted, the debate over when life begins will only be avoided in this arena—and only temporarily, no doubt. Although we should thank God for every lifesaving medical practice, the failure to properly respect life will continue to haunt society with new scientific research and medical procedures. If you’re skeptical on what battles lie ahead in the realm of ethics and science, read The modern make-over, which appeared this week on [email protected]

Please note that the bolded news links will take you directly to the news source. AiG is not responsible for content on the news websites to which we refer.

Only a return to biblical authority will bring people back to a proper respect for human life. See our Human Life Q&A for more reading on this topic.

4. The New York Times: Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List

It seems that “Evolutionary biology” has disappeared from a list of acceptable college majors for the US government’s National Smart Grant program. “Disappeared” not in the sense of being formally removed by a Department of Education decision, but in the sense of suddenly not being on the list! The Department of Education is currently blaming the omission on a clerical error, but some individuals have expressed doubt that it was truly an accidental removal.

At Answers in Genesis, we do not oppose the teaching of evolution, as we have stated before—for example, in this week’s “Misrepresented (sigh) time and time again,” we wrote, “Because evolution is a worldview that permeates much of society, students need to know what it teaches.”

5. The Baptist Standard: God and science

Brett Younger begins this opinion piece with an enjoyable anecdote from his high school chemistry class, but then launches into a problematic examination of science and religion and uses the “usual” arguments against young-earth creationism. For example:

… creationists continue to argue that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, even though the oldest rocks on the earth date back 3.8 billion years …

Do the oldest rocks on earth date back 3.8 billion years?

… when young people raised in fundamentalism go to college, they suddenly confront scientific reality …

Is there such a thing as “scientific reality” apart from one’s worldview?

… there are 3,700 species of cockroaches. That statistic alone should keep biblical inerrantists awake at night when they remember that Noah’s family had to catch two of everything to bring on the ark …

Did 7,400 (two of each species) cockroaches need to be on the Ark?

… the church is mistaken when we’re afraid that science threatens our belief in God …

Are we afraid of science?

… Religion and science are both pursuing truth …

(Religion may broadly include the pursuit of truth, but Christianity is about searching for truth and standing on [the] Truth.)

… When truth and belief come into conflict, it’s better to change our belief to fit the truth than to change the truth to fit our beliefs …

I think that comment speaks for itself.

“Evolution, for instance, might make us rethink the manner in which God created, but not the existence of a creator.”

Does the manner in which God created matter?

Well, one could spend hours and pages responding to Younger’s assertions, but all of them have been answered many times on the Answers in Genesis website already.

6. The Australian: Science collides with a Big Bang

A few scientists, most prominently Cambridge’s Neil Turok and Princeton’s Paul Steinhardt, have proposed a “revolutionary model of how the universe began,” which is angering traditional advocates of big bang model. Although Turok and Steinhardt still believe in the big bang, they do not accept that it was a beginning in the sense of the beginning of time, matter and energy. Rather, they believe that time, matter and energy are eternal, and the big bang that they believe began this universe was simply the result of “the collision of our universe with another one existing in another dimension.”

Of course, this development shows once again how scientific models come and go, and even popular theories later may fall into neglect; in addition, we see the extreme natural scenarios cosmologists must postulate to explain where the universe came from.

One important question regards those who use big bang model to “prove” God. These individuals use a syllogism that states (sometimes in slightly different terms):

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

(Note that we at Answers in Genesis don’t disagree with this logic; however, we don’t see it as a proof of God, but rather just another confirmation that logic is consistent with the biblical worldview.)

Individuals often support the second point in the syllogism by referencing the alleged truth of big bang model. But what happens if mainstream science changes its perspective on cosmology—will these apologists abandon big bang model then?


Remember, if you see a news story that might merit some attention, let us know about it! And thanks to all of our readers who have submitted great news tips to us. If you didn’t catch last week’s News to Note, why not take a look at it now? See you next week!

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.