FAMOUS APE-TO-MAN DIAGRAM "SO WRONG"?

We’ve all seen it—the apelike-creature-to-man diagram. It shows a supposed line of progression from an ape (or ape-like ancestor, which evolutionists picture as an ape), to a slightly more bipedal ape, to a more human-like ape, eventually culminating inmodern man. This progression has long been presented as fact in most textbooks, museums, and in the media. But is that idea “so wrong”? Well, some evolutionists are saying that the famous image is wrong because it gives the impression that evolution has a direction. A recent article quotes an evolutionist saying that image should be “expunged from the record of everything.” Dr. Adam Rutherford explains: [That image] points to the idea that evolution has a direction . . . It suggests that there are ape-like ancestors and they begin to walk upright and eventually become us and it goes in a very nice, neat line. This isn't how evolution works at all. We evolve to occupy whatever environmental niche we're in at that time . . . We quite easily in the future could evolve into a completely different shape or go back to being quadrupedal [walking on all fours]. That's just how evolution works. The idea that evolution 'improves' is not correct. So, evolution is directionless and humans could even evolve back to walking on all fours? Now that seems to suggest evolution does have a direction . . . in that case, going from walking on four limbs to walking on two limbs, to walking on four limbs, whatever is most advantageous. Confused? Also, if evolution is directionless, how did man evolve? Really, what they believe is that by directionless chance random processes, all life somehow evolved and eventually man evolved, and we know it happened, theyargue, because man and animals exist, therefore evolution is fact. Yep, that's the story (fairytale) of evolution. I’m reminded of this verse: For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans1:20) Also, Dr. Rutherford says mankind should never be looked on as a “pinnacle of evolution,” as was once taught. Actually, the whole idea of mankind as a “pinnacle” is itself borrowed from the Christian worldview because man is the pinnacle of creation. We alone are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), different from animals.So this evolutionist is trying to be consistent with his atheistic evolutionary view by not making man the pinnacle . . . or higher than the apes. Actually, the whole idea of mankind as a “pinnacle” is itself borrowed from the Christian worldview because man is the pinnacle of creation. We alone are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), different from animals. Directionless evolution is actually man's religion to try to explain life without God. Yes, evolution is a religion. Even ardent evolutionist Michael Ruse admitted this: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian,but I must admit that in this one complaint . . .the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Yes, evolution is a religion! VISIT: PROPHECY WATCHER WEEKLY NEWS: HTTP://PROPHECY-WATCHER-WEEKLY-NEWS.BLOGSPOT.COM