Does Ida, the Newfound Lemur-Like Fossil, Finally Link Evolution with Creation?

When the headlines appeared worldwide this month that a lemur-like fossil found in Germany could be the missing link to the evolution of humans, evolutionists seemed to uphold it as definitive proof that Darwin's theory was right. And even though the evolutionary fast-tracked Eocene Era when the unknown creature existed still has a lot of unknowns in facts, the references to the finding in the media likely means it'll be used from now on by the scientific community to prove evolution as real. Creationists may have to claim it as a ploy to forward evolution through any possible means, even if other evolutionary evidence is nearly better than "Ida" the ancient lemur provided.

Yes, this all reminds us that the creationist and evolution camps are still at war with each other and creating (or, ok, evolving) a wider schism as each year goes by. You'd think as time went on after the infamous 1926 Scopes Monkey Trial, evolutionists and creationists would have found a compromise somewhere along the way. Instead, each side kept steadfast to thinking they're both right and eventually developed the fear that if either one puts their foot forward to compromise, the contentious attitudes will hit the fan.

Let's be fair and admit that both sides are equally to blame and about as bad or worse as any political party adhering to dogmatic beliefs without looking toward a middle ground. Get ready for the above contentious attitudes to happen all over again once creationists rebut the scientists who insist that the new Ida fossil is the best evidence to date of linking humans in an evolutionary line with apes. Staring the evidence right in the face, it's going to be easy for the creationists to say the obvious: The lack of information from the Eocene Era after the time this lemur-like creature existed means the missing link is really yet to be found.

For creationists, it's the use of this time period when apes started going through a stronger evolutionary step that could potentially be used as a starting point in developing a different picture. It all seems so convenient that we've come to this point--right to the edge of a precipice where we could soon find the real answers of when humans came to be and when they quit co-existing with primates. Since evolutionary scientists think we're already there, the thought of what else could soon be found comes close to placing this slow climb to an answer as a separate form of grand design. Yet creationists will soon make the point that just because Ida the possible lemur had more developed hands that enabled it to use them in ways not possible prior, it doesn't necessarily connect it to when human beings came into existence.

But whether creationists say that or not will depend on how brave they're willing to be again in taking the bait for a new argument. Or perhaps someone influential from either side will step in and demand a compromise to be made. Using what we have now with Ida, we could be a lot closer to a more balanced, diffuse picture in understanding what the truth is in the DNA relationship between apes and humans.
_____

If you've read any of my articles in the past, you'll find that many of them make attempts to try and find a middle ground for the most contentious issues of our time. Unfortunately, my steadfast theory that bringing two opposing sides together can potentially find a compelling answer isn't a philosophy taken by the most powerful organizations out there individually holding the philosophies and answers to a much larger puzzle. I have no idea which side has the most followers, though I'll wager to guess that it's near split down the middle in who follows the creationist path and those who adhere to the evolutionist theories. On each side lies a lot of compelling evidence that can't really provide a much more compelling answer without taking something from the other.

For instance, evolutionists get the ire of creationists because they insist all creation was by chance rather than accepting the complex mathematical and reasoned design of nature being the compelling point of evidence in intelligent design. Conversely, evolutionists get miffed when creationists say that there's no evidence of evolution when there is undeniable evidence of it. And right in the middle of that protracted argument is where both camps should examine the evidence from the other. The only thing stopping such a thing is the evolutionary track of dogma and the simple psychological trait in wanting to be the right one in an argument. Since evolution and creation are arguably the two biggest opposed issues in the history of humankind, they obviously have a lot to ride on.

In the event either side lost, the fundamentals of what make up our existence would collapse. Perhaps it wouldn't be as dramatic on the scientist/evolution side, even though no more faith in scientists would still mean running blind in progressing our technology and intellects. It doesn't have to be said what's at stake for creationists.

At the time of this writing, the creationists are probably slightly ahead in points, which is good for someone like me who considers himself a Christian and believer in a God who created the Earth and universe. But I'm also not blind to the fact that evidence exists showing evolution did take place prior to human beings coming into existence and after. Creationists ultimately need to take the first step forward and admit it while also trying to convince the evolutionists that both of them have been arguing about the same thing for decades. Through the process of semantics, you only have to put forward a statement of "creation is evolution" (or vice versa) to create a whole new powerful path of discussion.

I'm far from the only one in the world who believes in the idea that a personal realization of God would utilize the process of evolution to work in conjunction with creation. From a logical standpoint, it's pure brilliance that creation would require evolution in order to adapt and learn in the process. It's also takes no reasoning skills to see that after humans were created, we continued evolving in order to provide a meaning to life in learning, striving and achieving. All evidence is there that it's still in progress.

The chances of both sides admitting that they need one another to finally come to the truth of where we come from are probably nil in the immediate term. All it takes, however, is someone with clout who can achieve meetings with both sides so discussions can take place with this very idea in mind. That means Ida the possible lemur was certainly what scientists say it was: A missing link to evolution, despite not connecting directly to the creation of human beings.

Perhaps discussions would unravel without finding more evidence from that mysterious Eocene Era. Once more fossils are found from that ancient time to help fill in the unknowns, the above scenario of a meeting might be more fruitful. After all, if evolution taught us anything, it's that taking extra time to evolve a better outcome for humanity is always preferable...

Source:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html