In March 1925 the Tennessee legislature outlawed the teaching of any doctrine denying the divine creation of man as taught by the Bible. In July of that same year, John T. Scopes, a high school teacher, was brought to trial for teaching evolution in violation of the state law. The ensuing Scopes Trial (or, derisively, the “Monkey Trial”) drew worldwide attention to the seemingly irreconcilable conflict between creationism (the old fashioned belief in the biblical account) and evolution (based on Darwin’s findings of natural selection).
John Scopes was found guilty and was fined $100; the Tennessee law was repealed in 1967; but the debate has not ended: Is man, Homo sapiens, solely the product of a long process of natural selection (“evolution”), or the result of a divine decision, a deliberate act by a Creator (“creationism”)?
The evolutionists cannot fathom how the other side can ignore the overwhelming evidence for life’s beginnings billions of years ago and claim that it is all the result of six days of creation; the creationists, pointing out that a complex watch required a watchmaker, cannot see how the sudden appearance of Homo sapiens as the most complex life form can deny the hand of God.
Enter “Intelligent Design”
In the past several years the debate has manifested itself again, with greater vigor, not only in the so-called Bible belt states, but also in such unexpected places as the Michigan House of Representatives and the Pennsylvania education system. One of the more recent instances is Ohio, where the arena is the state’s Board of Education.
Reports of these developments in the liberal media do not hide a degree of alarm at these developments—not so much because they continue to occur, but because the attack on Darwinian teachings now come from “creationism in disguise,” and “a good disguise” at that (Time Magazine). The disguise is called “Intelligent Design” (“I.D.” for short); Its proponents, by and large, do not take a position on how life got here; they just deny that natural selection (i.e., evolution) alone could have brought us about. Somewhere along the way, they hold, there had to be an Intelligent Designer.
What alarms the media and the scientific community is the fact that the proponents of ID are not Bible-waving old ladies but intellectuals and academics from varied disciplines in science, philosophy and theology. Their concerted attack on evolutionism has been called by the established scientific community “a wedge strategy to restore Creationism in disguise” (Science magazine).
Identifying the Intelligent Designer
The proponents of the new version of creationism, one must conclude from a study of their writings and arguments, find it easier to make a case for intelligent design than to answer the question: If so, who was the Intelligent Designer?
While many scientific critics of ID hold that the neo-creationists are conservative Christians upset about the displacement of God from school curricula, “the fact is that many leaders of the new movement prefer to skirt the question, or even allow an abstract “God” to be embedded in the very beginning of the universe: “No one really knows how the universe got built with DNA that can replicate itself” (in the words of William Dembski, a professor of mathematics).
A New York Times Puzzler
In its issue of April 8, 2001, The New York Times, in a page-one article by James Glanz, informed its readers that in spite of some wins by evolutionists in Kansas, Michigan and Pennsylvania, they “find themselves arrayed not against traditional creationism, with its roots in biblical literalism, but against a more sophisticated idea: the Intelligent Design theory.”
But who, if so, was the Intelligent Designer? As I was reading the article on that Sunday morning, I was delighted to learn that:
The designer may be much like the biblical God, proponents say, but they are open to other explanations, such as the proposition that life was seeded by a meteorite from elsewhere in the cosmos, or the new age philosophy that the universe is suffused with a mysterious but inanimate life force.
That proponents of ID consider the bringing of life to earth by a meteorite as one explanation, I felt, was close enough to my Sumerian explanation that the Seed of Life (what we now call DNA) was imparted to earth by the invading planet Nibiru during the collision (“Celestial Battle”) some four billion years ago.
But it turned out from examining the newspaper’s web site and earlier editions, that the New York City edition that I was reading excised an intriguing and key sentence from the original article. Here is what the paragraph had read in its original version, with the omitted phrase italicized:
“This designer may be much like the biblical God, proponents say, but they are open to other explanations, such as the proposition that life was seeded by a meteorite from elsewhere in the cosmos, possibly involving extraterrestrial intelligence, or the new age philosophy that the universe is suffused with a mysterious but inanimate life force.”
“An Advanced Civilization from Another World”
As my readers know, what I have said in my books went beyond the common origin of Life (=DNA) on earth and elsewhere in the universe. I showed that according to the Sumerian texts (on which the biblical account of Genesis was based), evolution took its course both on Nibiru and on earth. Beginning much earlier on Nibiru, it produced the advanced Anunnaki on Nibiru but only early hominids on earth when the Anunnaki had come here some 450,000 years ago. Then, I wrote, the Anunnaki engaged in genetic engineering to upgrade the hominids to Homo sapiens (to be in their likeness and after their image, as the Bible says).
While I was still wondering how the extraterrestrial angle was excised from the Times article in April 2001, I was delighted to read thus in its editorial on March 17, 2002. Headlined “Darwinian Struggle in Ohio,” the editorial explained:
Adherents of intelligent design carefully shun any mention of God in their proposals. They simply argue that humans, animals and plants are far too diverse and complex to be explained by evolution and natural selection, so there must have been an intelligent designer behind it all. Whether that designer is God, an advanced civilization from another world, or some other creative force, is not specified.
The emphasis of that astounding statement is mine.
Back to Enki?
This is quite an advance in acknowledging the Sumerian data—from the general possibility of an involvement by “extraterrestrial intelligence” in cosmic life to an Intelligent Designer from “an advanced civilization from another world.”
It is progress spanning the tale of the collision that spread the seed of life to the genetic engineering by the Lord Enki.
Have the editorial writers of the New York Times read my book, The Lost Book of Enki?
© Z. Sitchin 2002. Reprinted with per-mission.