WorldNetDaily: Adam & Eve Were Real

Buffoon Award

The blaring sirens and flashing lights were going wild and the blinking letters of the wall display of our Retard-o-tron™ said WorldNetDaily. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.

We were directed to a WND post titled Adam and Eve – just an allegory? It’s by Jerry Newcombe, a preacher who used to work with James Kennedy, the now-deceased televangelist who made the influential “documentary” Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, based on the book From Darwin to Hitler by Discovery Institute “fellow” Richard Weikart.

Newcombe’s article has a sub-title: “Exclusive: Jerry Newcombe battles those who pooh-pooh Genesis, embrace Darwin.” You know this is going to be fun. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Were Adam and Eve real people? I’m not a scientist, and I don’t play one on TV. But I believe they were. Why? Because I believe Jesus was who He said He was – God’s only begotten Son, and clearly He believed they were real.

The next few paragraphs are all scripture stuff. We’ll skip that but you’ll certainly want to go to WND to read it for yourself. Then he says:

John Hancock, John Adams and Ben Franklin learned their ABCs with the New England Primer, which says for the letter A: “A, In Adam’s fall, we sinned all.”

That’s certainly persuasive. Let’s read on:

How are we to understand claims of overwhelming “scientific facts” backing up the theory of evolution? Well, there are minor biological changes in nature. Some people call this “micro-evolution” (if you will), which simply refers to a limited range variation within a species or kind.

Then he dances the micro-macro mambo for a couple of paragraphs. We’ve debunked that in Common Creationist Claims Confuted.

After that he cites Jonathan Wells as an authority for the claim that “evidence for macroevolution is missing.” We won’t waste your time. Instead, see Discovery Institute: The Genius of Jonathan Wells. Then it gets good:

The late Dr. Colin Patterson, paleontologist at the British Museum, wrote a letter in 1979 saying in effect there are no definitive transitional forms in the fossil record chronicling evolution

Wow — we haven’t seen the Colin Patterson maneuver lately. That’s really ancient quote-mining. Patterson himself has rebutted it (see this at Talk.Origins: Patterson Misquoted). Newcombe continues:

I called Dr. Patterson in 1987, and he verified the authenticity of the letter. … He told me on the phone that the letter was accurate (there are no definitive transitional forms between species in the fossil record); nonetheless, he still believed in evolution. He said we just haven’t discovered yet the right mechanism to prove evolution.

How very convenient that Patterson verified the quote in a phone conversation in 1987. It’s too late to ask him about it now because he died in 1998. But surely, a good man like Newcombe wouldn’t make stuff up. Here’s more:

In 1912, scientists discovered in England a human skull with a jaw like an ape. They named him Piltdown Man. This was, they said, evidence of true evolution in progress – a real ape man. He was in the textbooks, encyclopedias, museums and even the dictionaries. Finally, the missing link was no longer missing. But, of course, Piltdown Man turned out to be a deliberate hoax.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing. Newcombe’s still talking about Piltdown Man. See Piltdown Man: The Creationists’ Savior.

Rev Newcombe goes on a while longer, but we think this post is long enough. Click over to WND to read it all. Perhaps you’ll be persuaded that Adam and Eve were real people. Our opinion is that the rev needs to polish his argument a bit. It hasn’t been updated for decades.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “WorldNetDaily: Adam & Eve Were Real

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    This guy is rocking Creationism like when The Rolling Stones were at the top of the charts.

  2. “pooh-pooh Genesis”

    Their words; not mine. My sentiments; not theirs.

  3. Jerry Newcombe writes, “Were Adam and Eve real people? I’m not a scientist, and I don’t play one on TV. But I believe they were.”

    Pope Francis says, “Were Adam and Eve real people? I am a scientist, but I don’t play one on TV. And I believe they are allegorical. I’m a Jesuit — trust me on this.”

    News at eleven.

  4. Creationists work very hard to stay so willfully ignorant.

  5. doodlebugger

    Mambo; derived from Kikongo(a conversation with God) brought to Cuba by West African slaves,
    “Mambo” was an Italian American movie (1954)
    “Mambo hayo” in Swahili means these things.
    In voudou(Haitian) mambo is a voodoo priestess.
    The mambo was first described as extreme and undisciplined
    by American dance instructors
    Putting all this together in a quote mining creationism approach
    to what Newcombe just said as he explains why Adam and Eve were real peopleI I conclude what jerry is really trying to tell us is;
    Voudou princesses brought Kikongo and Benjamin Franklin’s electricity experiments and some things to Cuba where,
    after a conversation with God in an extreme and undisciplined
    Italian American movie about a paleontologist who pooh poohed Genesis,
    Newcombe believed Piltdown man had a transitional jaw like an ape
    which later turned out to be a deliberate hoax because it was on TV..
    cha… cha… cha….

  6. Jim Thomerson

    I was fortunate to chat with Colin Patterson on a couple of occasions at meetings. We didn’t discuss anything of cosmic importance, unfortunately. I think Patterson had pretty much accepted Hennigian cladistic analysis methods in doing systematics and taxonomy. Henning treated all ancestors as hypothetical, because one cannot know if a particular taxon was an ancestor, or just a close relative. He treated a speciation event as extinction of the ancestral species and the origin of two new species. Never mind that one of the new species might be almost identical to the ancestral species.

    I understand that molecular geneticists are having some success at reconstructing ancestral genomes.