Thomas Germain Prof. Aaron Poli. Sci.

2 Section #1131 02/21/12 Video Critique #1: "The Journey of Man" For thousands of years, man passed stories of creation down from generation to generation. Seemingly every culture has these stories and they are as differing as they are numerous, but they have one commonality; they are all attempts at explaining the origins of man. In the mid 1800's, Charles Darwin suggested a challenging alternative to these tales: the Theory of Evolution. Buttressing his argument, men such as Dr. Spencer Wells recently brought forth studies of DNA, which began to drive the final nail into the coffin of creationism. The DNA evidence highlighted by Dr. Wells conflicts with Creationism, and the evidence is persuasive. The Theory of Creationism is most loudly touted by Christian evangelists but it is now the default position for most dogmatic theologians, Christian and non-Christian alike. Christians were the first to arrange gospel in more scientific terms in order to dispute Darwinism, and to prevent followers from having a lapse in faith, in turn causing church officials to lapse in power and influence. There are several offshoots of the theory, but it generally suggests that God created man in much the same form that he exists today, placing him in the areas where we currently find him, and it is often alleged this took place about 10,000 years ago. Dr. Wells' DNA evidence directly contradicts these notions, suggesting that the first modern man was a member of a tribe called the San Bushmen, who migrated out of Africa, stopping first in central Asia. Some of these people went South while a second wave headed North, with some people then going East to Europe while others crossed what is now the Bearing Strait and entered the Americas. Dr. Wells' also states that these people evolved to adapt physically to their differing environments, and that this process of migration and evolution took 50,000 years. Some Creationists who accommodate science would not contest this, suggesting

Germain, Page 2

that God created man, and then man proceeded to migrate. However, DNA takes issue with this as well, submitting that man evolved from primates, and adds that all life forms share a common ancestor which lived billions of years ago. Clearly, it is difficult to reconcile Evolution and DNA evidence with the Theory of Creationism. The beauty of science and in turn of DNA evidence is that scientific knowledge is derived from repeatable experiments which bear the same consistent results. Indeed, while the more complex parts of Dr. Wells' experiments require expensive machinery, the extracting of DNA is a process that can be preformed at home with salt, dish-soap, alcohol, and a plastic bag in a matter of minutes. If we were lucky enough to be invited into Dr. Wells' laboratory, we could personally verify the rest of his testing. His studies follow the male Y-Chromosome, which is generally passed down as an exact copy from father to son. When there is deviation, markers are created which can be mapped and followed right down the family line. When Dr. Wells compares the markers of men across the globe showing a clear heredity stemming from the San, and bolsters his argument with archeological evidence in the form of artifacts and the remains of ancient fire pits, a highly compelling theory takes shape. It is difficult to imagine how one could doubt the credibility of his argument without a fundamental misunderstanding of his ideas, unless one was unwilling to acknowledge them. The scientific creation story is now widely accepted, and men like Dr. Wells and Charles Darwin did serve to gain from their work in the form of fame and perhaps a modest amount of personal wealth, but they more likely than not intended only to advance science. On the other hand, Creationists are at best clinging to ancient beliefs, and at worst are working to maintain the status quo and cement the influence of the religious elite. Religion certainly has a place in our society, but in instances where it is hampering the dissemination of human understanding, it may be best to set creed aside so that we may as a society move on to more pressing matters.