Rule By Secrecy

[friedo]

I just finished reading this interesting book called Rule by Secrecy by Jim Marrs. The first 100 pages or so about the history of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, international bankers and the Federal Reserve were very interesting, but the rest is your usual tripe about Freemasons, UFOs, and so on. Though the book is very well researched and well written, it takes a turn for the worse when it makes the assertion that the Report from Iron Mountain was real. (It was exposed as a hoax, a brilliant hoax and political satire, many years ago.) Anyhoo, on page 360, Marrs talks about some interesting things dealing with ancient Egypt and the Hebrew Cabala, Gnostic texts and the evolution of the Old Testament. He says

The world's first secrets dealt with the true origins of mankind. Neither of the two most prevalent theories of today--Darwinism and Creationism--can fully account for human origins and development.

Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest fails to explain how humans overcame the thousands of deficiencies within the human DNA structure, while Creationism overlooks an impressive fossil record. Clearly a new model is required.


Now, my question is, what "thousands of difficiencies" is he talking about? He doesn't bring this up later, so I have no clue what he's referring to. Is this some esoteric factiod of genetic science? I'm sure the creationists would have a field day with it.

[Jophiel]

My guess is that he means everything from sickle cell anemia to alcoholism to albinoism to diabeties to obesity to a thousand other thiings caused by our genetic structure. The common response to which is that these things, while perhaps inconvienent, do not stop us from reproducing and thus passing them along. Just because we're not genetically perfect doesn't mean that we can't make babies before we die from our "errors".

[tcburnett]

Originally posted by friedo
Now, my question is, what "thousands of difficiencies" is he talking about? He doesn't bring this up later, so I have no clue what he's referring to. Is this some esoteric factiod of genetic science? I'm sure the creationists would have a field day with it.

No they wouldn't. It implies that either that God isn't perfect or doesn't exist.

[capacitor]

According to the Bible, mankind are born sinners, since they came from Adam and Eve, who lost divine perfection they originally had. (Other religious books have some variation on losing grace and taking steps to obtain it again.) According to the texts, that is why we are not perfect beings, and subject to defects. It is not a sign of an imperfect, or non-existent, God. It is a sign of God saying to Adam and Eve, and all others who follow them, "You have the knowledge, though you disobeyed me in obtaining it. Now, can you use the knowledge to regain the grace and the divinity and the immmortality that you have lost?" That is still the question before us. The teachings in the Bible and other religious books are to help us obtain our self-divinity back, in subjugation to our Creator. Can evolution help humans obtain what was lost? Or is it saying that we never have had such divinity bestowed upon us in the first place, and that it is no use and in fact silly to try to obtain such divinity? Now you see why many people take askance to the theory of evolution?

[Lizard]

I agree somewhat with Jophiel, but I think the overall picture is a little more complicated. A lot of so-called "deficiencies" are products of our modern way of life. Obesity, heart disease, athesclerosis, Alzheimers, etc. are "lifestyle diseases" that people from earlier times wouldn't have lived long or well enough to get. I'm no geneticist. but I also know things like hemophilia and maybe diabetes and myopia can be recessive traits, i.e., they can be passed down the generations by people who don't have the conditions themselves.
Of course you could always use reverse logic, and say that obviously these things are not genetic deficiencies, because people who have them are still with us.
Then there's the argument that says mankind has evolved so high (or maybe it was that our technology has grown so sophisticated)that natural selection doesn't affect us anymore. We care for our sick and disabled members better than any other species can, thus enabling them to perpetuate themselves. I think that's possible, but it's anyone's guess as to how likely it is.

[Smeghead]

I can't think of a single "deficiency within the human DNA structure" that is not typical of what we find in every living species. The statement makes exactly zero sense to me. Sure, we're not perfect. Neither is anything else on the earth. How can that be seen as a problem with evolution? Show me where evolutionary theory predicts an organism without defects. It's a non sequiter.


Evolution has no problems explaining the origins of man.