humans nearly wiped out 70 000 years ago?

Well, according to this article on CNN.. See, scientists are finding genetically, that we're all related much much closer than they previously thought. To the point that a while back there were only a bunch of us with common genes... so, what better way to explain it that us almost being utterly wiped out? Then they can have a catastrophe (but not a worldwide flood, ok?), and happily continue with the monkey-business that is evolutionary biology...

Well, I believe there is a better explanation. But it's one that many scientists won't even consider, because it doesn't fit with certain presuppositions. My explanation is: the history of man should be according to the bible and not Darwinian goo-to-you evolution. And yes, my explanation also fits the evidence.

I believe more and more these days that science is going to strongly support a biblical account of things. Science will return to her roots: observation of all of creation, with marvel and wonder being directed at the Creator. I also expect an outcry from the atheistic evolutionary bunch, crying "foul" and not pulling punches in trying to discredit the flow of things.

council of europe's parliamentary assembly: stomps on creationism

"The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe... The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion and to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum."

See the story here.

Ok, so a few points.

• The stomping out of creationism as an option presented at school levels, happening in the political arena, is a clear display of censorship based on fanaticism. To fanatically opposed something because you fear it'll be fanatical would actually be quite funny if it wasn't so sad.
• If the science of creationism is bad and unscientific, show us scientifically, right? I mean, an attitude of "it's not evolution so it's unscientific" doesn't display the empirical kind of science you want to supposedly promote.
• See my previous post on truth. If macro-evolution (pond-scum to man) is true, then presenting an alternative view in the scientific arena will stimulate thought, and it will allow our young future scientists to present a decent case against creationism. If however, it is not true, then you certainly have something to worry about because more holes will be poked into it. Is that what concerns you?
  
• To prohibit creationism to protect human rights? I'm actually struggling to read between the lines here. It could either mean, 1) we don't want young, scientifically justified creationists blowing themselves up in buses in central London.. or 2) we value our new evolutionarily-justified values and freedoms to do whatever we please without feeling guilty about a God, so we want to keep this and not have some creationist having a strong case. We don't want these young creationist students to come into parliament in a few years and change our laws to remove our self-serving freedoms.
  

I happen to be a creationist, and a young-earther-6000-years-since-Adam kind! And I notice how we teach our kids that same sex relationships are natural (though biologically this doesn't float) - and on the other hand, we refuse to tell our kids about intelligent design and creationism, because it might impact our lifestyle later.