There have recently been a number of news articles and blog posts here and there on the new discoveries concerning human origins. The discoveries introduce doubts about the well-worn ''out of Africa'' theory which posits that all humans have a common origin on the continent of Africa.
I don't claim to be an expert; I'm not qualified to join in a scientific discussion on these subjects but then again, I wonder how much of this kind of thing is based on real science, and how much is politics-driven, or propaganda-related. We have all seen how this preposterous ''man-caused global warming'' belief system has become so entrenched and stubbornly defended even after 'Climategate.' It appears to me that even those who are supposed to be doing science and dealing with facts, objectively, can get caught up in peer pressure, the urge to conform to 'get ahead', political correctness, and simple dogmatism.
Scientists can be every bit as dogmatic and closed-minded as any religious fanatic, and be in total denial about it to boot.
I think that even those people who purport to be apolitical or to be able to approach their science work with objectivity are still subject to conformism, or to an unconscious tendency to go with the flow, with the consensus. Though there are people in the sciences who are mavericks, resisting the leftist consensus, most are very much a part of the popular mindset, whether they know it or not.
So what about this 'out of Africa' hypothesis, which seems to have become widely accepted as proven, just as Darwin's theories have been? It has always, this theory, struck me as being dubious, and not just because of some kind of biases on my part. My attitude towards it is the same as my attitude to the theory of evolution. Even before I was a Christian, I was a skeptic on evolution, and used to argue with my anthropology and history professors about it. I didn't do so because, as some wrongly assume, I was 'brainwashed' by Christian teachings of creationism. I was not yet Christian when I formed my doubts, and I did so because I saw no solid proof that Darwin was right. The believer in Darwin might then counter that there is even less proof that the Bible is right. That's just changing the subject; science is supposed to be grounded in solid evidence and proof; faith is faith, to be taken with trust. 'Science' cannot ask for that kind of blind trust, by its very own proclaimed standards.
Yet evolution is accepted pretty much as a given. This is where I questioned it. Where are the missing fossils that show the development every step of the way from the hominid apes to Homo sapiens sapiens?
And the whole 'out-of-Africa' idea is pretty much dependent on the idea that man 'evolved' from apes, or from a common ape-like ancestor in the distant past, and since those presumed ancestors are found in Africa -- well, then automatically that is where the first humans must have 'evolved.'
It seems that there are too many missing links in this chain, too many things that we have to assume without solid proof.
The discussion of the BBC article at AmRen shows that many there are skeptical (understandably) of the out-of-Africa hypothesis, but it shows that virtually nobody questions the presumption that we all evolved from an ape-like ancestor. I find this interesting.
It seems that Darwin's theories are accepted at face value by most 21st century Americans, or so I perceive from what I see, hear, and read. The regulars at AmRen seem to be even more solidly pro-Darwin than an average group of Americans. Odd, is it not, that no Christians speak up on that thread? The AmRen commentariat seems to be mostly secular-to-atheistic. Is that characteristic of race-realists? I think maybe it is.
I have heard the case made that evolution actually works in our side's favor; how this is I am not sure. I suppose the idea that European peoples 'evolved' further and faster is supposed to bolster our case for the obvious, ahem, 'human biodiversity.' But it could just as easily work against us, and I think it is used against us, in the sense that the 'African Eve' hypothesis makes the case that ''we are all one race, the human race.''
If scientists looked objectively at all this varied evidence, some of it contradictory to established dogma, surely there would be less lockstep thinking among them, would there not? Is there any major scientist who posits a different origin for human beings, or multiple origins, and if the latter, would that theory fit with the evolution dogma?
Years ago, the commonly accepted belief was that this continent we live on was populated only by Asiatic descendants who ''walked across the Bering Land Bridge during the last Ice Age'. To suggest that all the 'Indians' found here by later White colonists were of varied origins was considered ridiculous. But I remember reading some books that described evidence of earlier populations of non-Asiatic origin in the Americas. One book that dealt with this was a book called 'They All Discovered America.' If you scroll down the page at the Amazon link, you will see other books along the same lines.
When I read of these evidences of Europeans and others visiting the Americas in pre-Columbian times, I found it plausible. There seems to be some evidence that is being ignored or suppressed because it does not jibe with the current orthodoxy, the sacred 'out of Africa' dogma.
While it's obvious that science cannot change with every bit of new evidence, neither should scientists become so hidebound and so lacking in curiosity that they automatically exclude or gainsay any rogue evidence that fails to confirm their existing biases. This is what many of them are doing with the 'global warming' theory and with the theory of single origins, out-of-Africa theories -- and ultimately, with the real sacred cow, the theory of evolution.
In a running argument I had with an anthropology teacher, I persisted in asking why humans had to have originated only in Africa, and he simply said, finally, that's where the hominids were. Is this not circular reasoning, or reasoning backward from a foregone conclusion?
The Bible, of course, teaches that a first man and then a first woman were created by God -- but how did the races and nations develop, in such a short time according to the Bible? Evolution can't be called in here to explain it, because the spans of time would be too short. At least there are different explanations developed among Christians for this, and I don't know the answer. Actually I don't think it's essential that we know the answers this side of heaven.
I do think that the current state of scientific theory on human origins (and even more so on race) is confused, is disingenous, and is highly politicized. The 'out of Africa' belief is just another form of Afrocentrism, another way of making us believe that we are all the same by origin, and perhaps we might even be expected to believe what the 'Nation of Islam' believes, that White peoples are an aberration from the 'original' man.
I doubt we will even really know the whole story of 'human biodiversity'; it is too highly-charged politically, and the PC (anti-White) orthodoxy too deeply entrenched.
