rEVOLUTION

I think it's fantastic that: whenever I tell someone that I do not support the current theory of evolution, it is assumed that this is because I am a christian, or uneducated. I'd like to believe that I'm educated and I'm certainly not a christian. So what is it that stops me from believing in the theory of evolution that is touted by Kent State University (there are over a dozen "accepted" theories of biological evolution as far as the field of anthropology is concerned).
I'm not assuming that other universities do it better, I'm just not as familiar with their theories. Kent State's theory is generally accepted because of the contribution made by faculty member, Dr. Lovejoy, the finder of "Lucy".
I want to make it clear that I believe in the possibility of micro evolution, but that I feel that there are too many holes in the macro evolution theory to make it believable.
Rather than pick apart the whole theory, an example of one problem with the theory is the number of gaps in it. The gaps have been allegedly "filled" with "fossil evidence". The evidence includes things like the bone shard discovered by Mary Leakey that is only about 3/4" in length. An artists recreation of an entire species was created by using this shard as part of a brain casing, and this species "filled" a large gap in the theory. Science was able to "discover a missing link" using a tiny shard, one, that could be an anomaly for all we know! It is preposterous that this would be accepted as hard evidence.
As with any history, not just biological, or anthropological, all history is written by the winners. People need to bear this in mind when reviewing history of any kind. Or science, or religious materials. Language falls flat, anyway. Whatever you read is someone's interpretation of what happened, and what they saw, and the only way that it's going to be published and distributed to public is if the ruling class gives it a seal of approval. If the material is in any way controversial, or derogatory toward the ruling class, it will not be published and may well be destroyed.
These are the sorts of things that people should keep in mind when reading anything. History is not unbiased. It is extraordinarily subjective, as are a number of scientific "findings". It can be seen time and again throughout the history of scientific research: if an individual wants to find something badly enough, or believes strongly enough in the expected result of an experiment that is exactly what he or she will find. Then, decades later someone comes along and discovers a "fact" different from the original finding.
We've come a long way, baby. I acknowledge that. There have been a number of advances in science and medicine. Let's face it, though. We don't have a clue what the hell is going on. How did we get here? The big bang works, except for that first percentage of a second of existence that we can't account for. We just like to believe that we know what's going on.
It somehow makes us feel better to be able to stick a label on things that surround us, that have always been there, and say that we've "discovered" it. It makes us feel powerful. Makes us less afraid when we realize that we are smaller and less significant than a virus in the grand scheme of the universe. I find that fact comforting, but I believe it is the motivating force behind mankind's "need to know".