Progressive creationist anthropology: many reasons NOT to believe
A review of Who was Adam? by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross
NAVPRESS, Colorado Springs, CO, 2005
reviewed by Peter Line
Although mostly written by Fazale Rana, the book is said to equally represent the
work of Hugh Ross. Their salvos against biblical creationists are mostly confined
to the earlier chapters of the book, with the first shot being to blame us for the
biblical perspective on human origins not being ‘at the high table of scientific
debate’ (p. 12).
Here they characterize the approach taken by creationists as largely attacking human
evolutionary models, but seldom offering ‘a viable theory of their own’
(p. 12). They also portray creationists as often attacking the integrity of evolutionary
biologists and anthropologists ‘with accusations of deception and conspiracy
theories’ (p. 12). After this chastisement of creationists the authors claim
the moral high ground by stating, ‘Personal attacks destroy the possibility
for dialogue. They erect barriers’ (p. 12). Pleading for peace while shooting
rockets is unfortunately par for the course with these writers.
They oddly express agreement with anti-creationists Brian Alters and Sandra Alters,
who argue against teaching creation alongside evolutionary theory in the science
classroom because it is a religious concept (pp. 12–13). One presumes Rana
and Ross agree with the teaching of evolution as science, as they voice objection
only to the teaching of creation as science.
David vs Darwin?
Chapter one focuses on comparing the views of the biblical David with those of Charles
Darwin. There is nothing really remarkable about this chapter, although the authors
manage another swipe at young-earth creationists when they state:
‘Neanderthal fossils convinced many people that humanity’s age far exceeded
6,000 years, the age espoused by many self-described biblical literalists, who viewed
the Genesis 1 creation days as 24-hour time periods. For many
people, this finding greatly diminished the credibility of the biblical account
of Adam and Eve’ (p. 24).
They therefore argue that human evolution ‘indirectly gained favor’,
as the ‘scientific community seemed to have demonstrated biblical error regarding
human origins’ (p. 24). Of course, there is also an oft repeated straw man
here: informed creationists do not describe themselves as ‘literalists’,
but those who take the text according to the original meaning, i.e. history as history,
poetry as poetry, etc.
It was Christian compromisers of that era, all too willing to abandon the plain
meaning of God’s Word in order to retain worldly respectability, who made
people doubt the biblical account of human origins. The views of Darwin’s
defeated opponents were essentially identical to those of modern progressive creationists
or ‘intelligent design’ theorists.
Instead of blaming young-earth creationists, Rana and Ross should consider whether
it was Christian compromisers of that era, all too willing to abandon the plain
meaning of God’s Word in order to retain worldly respectability, who made
people doubt the biblical account of human origins. The views of Darwin’s
defeated opponents were essentially identical to those of modern progressive creationists
or ‘intelligent design’ theorists.1,2
Hominids
Chapter two is primarily a brief review of the ‘hominid’ fossil record
and current human evolutionary models. Here, some creationists are portrayed as
opportunists who capitalize on the Piltdown Man forgery, and other ‘dubious
paleoanthropological finds’, in order to ‘generalize that hominid fossils
are either fictitious or fraudulent’ (p. 28). Other creationists are said
to
‘ … view the fossils as real but regard some to be apes (the australopithecines,
for example) and some (such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals) as variants
of modern humans. Any dating of fossils as older than 10,000 years in age is disputed
and dismissed’ (p. 28).
The above ‘all too popular creationist views’ are said to be:
‘ … not the only Christian views. A perspective consistent with the
Bible can regard hominids in much the same way as the entire scientific community
does—as real animals that existed in earth’s past. This interpretation
also considers the dates assigned to hominid fossils as generally reliable within
the limitations of the methods used to obtain them’ (p. 29).
Throughout the book there seems to be this yearning by the authors to be on the
same playing field as the ‘scientific community’. So, who is this ‘scientific
community’ they keep referring to? A clue might be that the authors consider
most evolutionary paleoanthropologists, ‘though typically committed to methodological
naturalism (the notion that in science only mechanistic explanations based on the
laws of physics and chemistry are permitted), display exemplary integrity and work
hard at their discipline’ (p. 29).
No prizes for guessing whom Rana and Ross are trying to curry favour with. Of course,
most biblical creationists have likewise pointed out that our main disagreement
with secular scientists is not with their data but their interpretations
of this data.
Scriptura sub scientia
Chapter three presents the Reasons to Believe (RTB) model of human origins.
However, before elucidating on their model, the authors have another shot at young-earth
creationists by saying that many scientists ‘dismiss the biblical account
of human origins because they assume it requires a young-earth interpretation of
Genesis 1—a position that treats the creation days
as six calendar (24 hour) days’ (p. 41). They then state that:
‘Clearly, any stance that regards the universe and Earth as merely 6,000 to
10,000 years old lacks scientific credibility. However, to discount the biblical
explanation for humanity based on this one creationist perspective disregards all
other theologically credible interpretations of Genesis 1’ (pp. 41–42).
The day-age view that fossils formed millions of years before Adam also necessitates
that God created the world with death and suffering in operation, which is evident
by some fossils exhibiting ‘evidences of disease and violence (hence suffering)’.
Yet, at the end of the sixth day of creation, ‘God saw all that he had made,
and it was very good’ (Genesis 1:31). This throws doubt on the very character of
God.
The creation days in Genesis 1 are associated with a numeric, with evening and
morning, and also with night.3
In addition, Exodus affirms that ‘in six days the Lord made the heavens and
the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested on the seventh day’.
Exodus even outlines that the working week, consisting of six days of labour and
one day of rest, is based on the creation week (Exodus 20:8–11). It is hard to believe that any other
interpretation of the creation days, other than literal 24-hour days, is conceptually
possible in the context of Scripture. It is like arguing that Jonah was not in the
great sea creature for three days and three nights, but for three eons of time (Jonah 1:17).
Hence, there are no ‘other theologically credible interpretations of Genesis 1’. The day-age view and other compromise
positions, such as the gap theory and the framework hypothesis, have all been thoroughly
refuted in Jonathan Sarfati’s book Refuting Compromise.4 According to Sarfati these positions ‘are
reactions to perceived conflicts with “science” and have not the slightest
basis in the Hebrew of Genesis’.5
Rana and Ross let the cat out of the bag when they dismiss the young-earth position,
not because of biblical arguments, but because to them it ‘lacks scientific
credibility’ (p. 41).
Yet they repeatedly call their human origins model biblical, even though their erroneous
interpretation of the creation days makes their creation model unbiblical, with
far reaching consequences. For example, the authors’ day-age view allows them
to readily accommodate ‘the scientific dates for the age of the universe and
earth’ (p. 42), meaning they believe the earth is billions of years old. They
also believe that ‘the Creator repeatedly intervened in Earth’s history,
initiating new life-forms, including humans’ (p. 42).
Soulless pre-Adamic hominids
As such, hominids (fossil specimens that evolutionists regard as ape-men) to them
were ‘animals created by God’s direct intervention’, but ‘they
were not spiritual beings made in His image’ (p. 50). However, the Creator
Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, stated emphatically that ‘at the beginning
of creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6).6
Hence, if man was created on Day 6 (only five days after ‘the beginning’),
then this gives no room for God to repeatedly have inserted soulless ‘hominids’,
by ‘direct intervention’, over millions of years prior to the creation
of Adam. They must be either extinct apes or descendants of Adam and Eve.
Day-age views of Scripture also lead to the uncomfortable position that death and
disease had already been in existence for millions of years prior to the creation
of Adam and Eve. Yet, in Romans 5:12 it says that sin entered the world through one
man, and as result of this sin death occurred. As put by Ken Ham: ‘God instituted
death and bloodshed so that man could be redeemed. If death and bloodshed existed
before Adam sinned, the basis for atonement is destroyed.’7
The day-age view that fossils formed millions of years before Adam also necessitates
that God created the world with death and suffering in operation, which is evident
by some fossils exhibiting ‘evidences of disease and violence (hence suffering)’.8,9
Yet, at the end of the sixth day of creation, ‘God saw all that he had made,
and it was very good’ (Genesis 1:31). This throws doubt on the very character of
God.
The purpose here is not to give a refutation of the day-age view of Scripture, but
to make the reader aware of the dangerous biblical position the authors take. Whatever
the perceived benefit of accommodating the Bible to positions more aligned with
the ‘scientific community’, it is insignificant compared to the day-age
view’s ‘wrecking ball’ effect on Scripture.
The Reasons to Believe (RTB) Model
Rana and Ross like to emphasize that ‘With RTB’s scientific model, creation
is testable. The concept of creation has entered the scientific domain’
(p. 43). In chapter 3, they outline thirteen ‘predictions’ of the RTB
human origins creation model. Many of these predictions conveniently fit in with
the Out-of-Africa evolutionary hypothesis or are watered down biblical events, for
example, a local flood, that puts little burden of proof on the model. The authors
state that:
‘The chief features of the Out-of-Africa hypothesis bear striking similarity
to the central tenets of RTB’s human origins model. In some respects the Out-of-Africa
hypothesis could be thought of as the biblical model shoehorned into an evolutionary
framework’ (p. 73).
The following is a brief summary of thirteen ‘predictions’ from the
RTB model, with the number in brackets corresponding to how the predictions were
numbered (pp. 51–52): humanity traces back to one woman (Eve) and one man
(Noah) (1), and was created by God ‘at the “just-right” time in
Earth’s history’ (6); ‘in or near the Middle East’ humanity
originated in a single location (3); spread around the world (12); and ‘seeds
of human civilization and agriculture had their birth’ (13); ‘humanity’s
early population size was relatively small’ (2) and its ‘origin dates
back to between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago’ (4); ‘the female lineage
(Eve) predates the origin of the male lineage (Noah) (5); humanity’s origin
coincides with the appearance of human culture in the archaeological record, and
its subsequent explosive expansion (7); ‘humans share anatomical , physical,
biochemical, and genetic similarities with the extinct hominids as well as with
great apes and other animals’ (8); and are behaviourally distinct from the
hominids and great apes (9); a ‘universal but local flood, that impacted all
of humanity, shaped human history’ (10); and finally that human life spans
‘became progressively shorter after the Flood’ (11).
Concerning points 3, 12 and 13, the location ‘in or near the Middle East’
is somehow compatible with an African origin of humanity, amazingly even East African
(p. 61). Moreover, prediction 10, a ‘universal but local flood’, is
an exquisite oxymoron.
The ‘evidence’
Skhūl 5 skull (cranial capacity of about 1,520 cm3) is regarded by many evolutionists
as that of a modern human. However, in Rana and Ross’ human origins model
fossils such as these can ‘be thought of as nonhuman, bipedal primates that
predated humankind’ (p. 80).
The next few chapters ‘summarize recent advances in the study of human origins’
(p. 52). Predictably, in chapter four, which deals with summaries of genetic studies,
the evidence is ‘remarkably consistent with RTB’s creation model’,
including the ‘timing and location of humanity’s origin’ (p. 73).
Similarly, an examination of the fossil record and archaeological evidence in chapter
five found that it was ‘reasonably’ explained by the RTB ‘biblical’
model (p. 92).
In the latter chapter the authors seem to be settling for a date of about 40,000
years ago for the appearance of human beings on Earth (pp. 80, 95). If they are
that confident in this age date, one wonders why a safety age range of humanity’s
origin, to between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago, is necessary. Building such extreme
plasticity in to their supposed ‘biblical’ model indicates that the
authors, rather than deferring to Scripture (which gives an age under 10,000 years10), are allowing their model
to sail in whatever direction the ‘scientific community’ blows. It seems
that their model changes direction regularly, as in 2003 the above age range was
from about 10 to 60,000 years ago.11
They also note that around 40,000 years ago ‘advanced human culture exploded
on the scene’ (p. 91), with the culture displayed by these human beings indicating
‘defining features of God’s image in humans’ (p. 92). There is
a danger, however, in insisting that because other ‘hominids’, such
as Neandertals, allegedly possessed relatively simplistic cultures, that they were
not human. The following statement by Holloway illustrates the folly in such logic:
‘Were modern living human hunters and gatherers to be judged on the basis
of stone tool technology alone, they would probably be considered less advanced,
“brain wise,” than Neanderthals.’12
Dates or dating methods that do not agree with the RTB human origins model are said
to be obtained using ‘the notoriously inaccurate luminescence dating method’
(p. 80). For example, the recently re-dated ‘early anatomically modern humans’
Omo I and Omo II fossils from the Kibish Formation in southern Ethiopia (giving
a new estimated age of about 195,000 years13
—previous assigned age was 130,000 years old), as well as dates for human
fossils from Skhűl cave and Qafzeh caves of Israel, and Klaise River Mouth
Cave in South Africa. However, the authors have not done their homework too well,
as the new dates for the Omo fossils were obtained using the argon-argon (40Ar/39Ar) dating technique.14 Perhaps sensing it is a lost cause to
bring the evolutionary age dates of these fossils within the confine of the RTB
model, the authors instead try to dehumanize the fossil specimens. To Rana and Ross,
these fossils, categorized as modern humans even by many evolutionists (i.e. people
who Rana and Ross claim ‘display exemplary integrity’, as mentioned
before), are to ‘be thought of as nonhuman, bipedal primates that predated
humankind’ (p. 80).
The authors describe how the ‘obituary’ of their model had been reported
by a young-earth Christian organization, in regards to the publishing of the fossil
called Homo sapiens idàltu (p. 82–83).15 These fossil crania,16 hailed by evolutionary anthropologist Richard
Klein of Stanford University as being ‘basically modern people, remarkably
modern in appearance’,17
and dated to between 160,000 and 154,000 years ago using the 40Ar/39Ar dating method,18 are
conveniently brushed off by Rana and Ross as:
‘ … simply primates—animals that walked upright, possessed limited
intelligence, and had some type of culture, but animals nonetheless. All the data
support this interpretation’ (p. 83).
Their human origins model is then gleefully pronounced as ‘alive and well’
and that ‘[a]ny reports of it succumbing under the weight of this find have
been greatly exaggerated’ (p. 83). The RTB model may be pronounced ‘alive
and well’, but who actually believes it?
Fine-tuned
Chapter six details how, in terms of the fine-tuning of conditions in the Earth
and universe for human life to appear, ‘all the necessary windows for human
life and human civilization opened at just the right time and all at once’
(p. 109). Some may be tempted to jump on this bandwagon as, after all, few creationists
would argue that the universe and planet Earth are not exquisitely fine-tuned and
designed for life. However, one can argue for this much more persuasively without
the ‘baggage’ of being married to the ‘scientific community’s’
big bang cosmology, stellar evolution, and billions of years of Earth geological
activity, as are Rana and Ross (but of course they oppose the same ‘scientific
community’ on biological evolution).
For example, in their scenario at least nine billion years of star formation had
to occur before Earth could be formed (p. 98). Also, in their cosmology, the origin
of humanity had to occur between fateful molecular cloud encounters, which are said
to occur about every 100 million years (p. 102).
One wonders why an omnipotent God would be constrained to create according to a
secular cosmological model whose main purpose is to explain the creation and evolution
of the universe without Him. In the authors’ creation model life first appeared
about 550 million years after the creation of Earth, and then ‘these simple
organisms needed nearly another 4 billion years to process and redistribute Earth’s
heavy elements into forms essential to human survival’ (p. 98). Surely an
omnipotent God could create instantly the necessary conditions for life to thrive
or perhaps do it in six days if trying to set a precedent, instead of through the
tortured logic suggested by Rana and Ross.
Longevity
As outlined in chapter seven, the RTB model accepts the longer life spans described
in Genesis, and that ‘the literal meaning of “years” for the Genesis
account of early human life spans is accurate’ (p. 112). Rana and Ross state
that other explanations, such as using lunar years, ‘typically lead to absurdity’
(p. 112). It is a pity that they cannot see a similar absurdity associated with
their non-literal interpretation of the creation days in Genesis.
Migration
Chapter eight is about human migration patterns, and it is no surprise when the
authors state, ‘Many of the predictions made by the RTB human origins model
regarding populating the earth overlap those made by the Out-of-Africa model’
(p. 124), and later that these predictions ‘fully harmonizes [sic] with the
RTB creation model’ (p. 136). Awkward age dates for their model are brushed
off as: ‘controversial’ (p. 128); as ‘the notorious inaccuracy
of this technique’ (p. 129); again as ‘controversial’ and ‘inaccurate’
(p. 130); and as ‘techniques that typically overestimate the age of fossil
specimens and ‘artifacts’ (p. 131). Not that I am arguing that these
age dates are valid; I am merely pointing out how Rana and Ross are selective in
their acceptance of the age dates.
To Rana and Ross the findings from their analysis up to this point ‘also resonate
with the Out-of-Africa hypothesis’ (p. 137). Hence, they suggest that a way
of discriminating between the two models is to evaluate whether ‘abundant
evidence for human evolution exists’ (p. 137), and so chapters nine to 14
are spent critically evaluating evidence for human evolution.
Hominid insertions
In chapter nine the authors emphasize the debate between ‘lumpers’ and
‘splitters’ of hominid species, and how the ‘inability to determine
the number of hominid species and properly classify them creates real problems that
prevent scientists from establishing the evolutionary pathway to humans’ (p.
148). According to Rana and Ross:
‘The pattern of the hominid fossil records can, however, be readily explained
within the framework of RTB’s human origins model. It regards the hominids
as animals created by God. The explosive initial diversity of hominids in the fossil
record and their persistent diversity for the past 7 million years is the very feature
expected in the fossil record if the hominids were formed by the Creator’s
hand’ (p. 154).
It almost defies belief that they can suggest that a diversity of hominids in the
fossil record for the past 7 million years ‘is the very feature expected …
if the hominids were formed by the Creator’s hand.’ There is no mention
in Scripture of anything that could be contrived as a hominid, nor of God periodically
creating and inserting such hominids on Earth over millions of years.
One may also ask as to God’s reason for such hominid insertions over time,
as the best explanation offered by Rana and Ross is that the hominid ‘animals’
were ‘created by God’s direct intervention for His purposes’ (p.
50). Convinced that their RTB model wins out so far the authors move on to chapter
10, where aspects such as ‘the emergence of bipedalism and the increase in
brain size’ (p. 154) are compared between the RTB and evolutionary models.
Brain size and bipedalism
To Rana and Ross, if ‘bipedalism emerged through natural-process biological
evolution’, then the transformation from ‘knuckle-walking quadrupeds
into bipedal primates’ should have occurred gradually, and ‘the first
form of bipedalism should be crude and inefficient’ (p. 159). This is opposed
to the RTB model, which proposes ‘bipedal primates as coming into existence
through God’s direct creative activity’; and in this model bipedalism
is expected to have appeared ‘suddenly in the fossil record’, to have
remained ‘essentially unaltered’, and to ‘be optimal as soon as
it appears’ (p. 159).
Hence, it is no surprise that Rana and Ross fall over themselves in accepting, seemingly
without qualification, any ‘early hominid’ as being bipedal, no matter
that there is still much dispute, even within the evolutionist community, as to
the nature of the locomotion of these apes. This rush to judgment allows them to
pronounce, in support of the RTB model, that ‘the fossil record shows that
bipedalism did not emerge gradually’, but ‘appeared suddenly and concurrently
with the hominids’ first appearance’ (p. 160).
The authors argue there would be ‘insufficient time for bipedalism to emerge
through natural-process biological evolution’, given the ‘extensive
and coordinated changes to the skeletal and muscular anatomy of knuckle-walking
quadrupeds’ that would be required (p. 163). By stating that there was ‘insufficient
time’ the authors seem to imply that given more time the anatomical changes
could have occurred via evolutionary processes. Most creationists would argue that
no amount of time will make evolution work; rather, more time would lead to more
losses of information.
Facultative vs obligate bipedalism?
They propose that this first form of ‘facultative (optional)’ bipedalism
lasted for about five million years, with a second, ‘obligatory bipedalism’,
that first appeared in the genus Homo, lasting nearly two million years
(p. 162). They also state, presumably based on a study of pelvis bones cited by
the authors in a preceding paragraph, that:
‘Interestingly, Homo erectus and Neanderthals possessed an identical
form of obligatory bipedalism, but distinct from that seen in human beings. Again,
with the arrival of humanity, a new form of bipedalism suddenly broke forth’
(p. 162).
Despite their campaign to have the early hominids and australopithecines classified
as bipedal, they nevertheless only consider this bipedalism optional. Indeed, some
of these apes may have had limited ability for non-human bipedal locomotion, but
the morphology of creatures such as Australopithecus afarensis indicates
they were specialized for climbing in trees, as well as knuckle walking.19 Their justification for the second obligatory
bipedalism is that, ‘given the differences between the australopithecines
and the Homo primates in lifestyle and environment, the creation model
anticipates that God would create each of the two with different forms of bipedalism’
(p. 162). However, they appear to give no justification or explanation for how and
why the purported obligatory bipedalism in Homo erectus and Neandertals
were different to that of ‘human beings’. The authors of the pelvis
bones study that Rana and Ross rely on for the above analysis admit that ‘The
significance of the differences within Homo are unclear’,20 so one wonders how Rana and Ross can be so certain
about the functional implication of these same differences.
Brain size progression?
Photo of a ‘reconstructed hominid’ taken at the San Diego Museum of
Man. Rana and Ross believe that God periodically created and inserted such hominids
on the earth over the last seven million years, but there is no mention in Scripture
about this.
This chapter also examines hominid brain size in the fossil record. They argue that
‘if hominids represent God’s creative handiwork, the fossil record should
reveal a step-wise pattern for brain-size change between species’ (p. 164).
The argument of discontinuous leaps in brain size falls apart with the Neandertals,
as well as other fossil skulls also not regarded as humans by Rana and Ross, such
as Omo II mentioned earlier (estimated cranial capacity of 1435 cm3),21 as there is no step-wise
pattern of change in cranial capacity between these fossils and extant humans. The
authors manage to list brain sizes that indicate a step-wise increase from the australopithecines,
to Homo habilis, and to Homo erectus. They then mention that the
‘Neanderthal’s brain size was 1,100 to 1,400 cm3 ’,
and that by comparison ‘modern human brains range in size between about 1,000
to 1,500 cm3 ’ (p. 164), and subsequently state that ‘These
figures show the general pattern of discontinuous leaps in brain size, not gradual
increases’ (p. 164).
However, the above figures underestimate the brain size range in ‘normal’
adult ‘modern humans’ (about 790 to 2200 cm3),22 and incorrectly lowers the range for Neandertals.
Aiello and Dean23 list
Neandertal specimens with cranial capacities between 1200 and 1750 cm3.
Although at the end of the chapter they claim that the natural history of the ‘bipedalism,
brain size, and brain structure’ of ‘the various hominids in the fossil
record’ align with the RTB creation model, the alignment is forced.
Homo erectus
Chapter 11 is essentially about making Homo erectus distinct from human
beings, even to the point of making him appear ‘to have had more in common
with apes than with human beings’ (p. 174). Concerning the juvenile Turkana
Boy (KNM-WT 15000), containing one of only a few, as well as the most complete,
Homo erectus postcranial skeleton, according to the authors: ‘Like
others of its kind, this biped likely stood just over five feet tall’ (p.
169). However, they fail to mention that ‘the average best estimate of adult
stature in KNM-WT 15000 is about 185 cm (6’1”)’.24
They state that ‘no H. erectus specimens exist with undisputed dates
more recent than 100,000 years ago’ (p. 172). However, one can argue, as creationists
do, that there are no undisputed H. erectus dates. If Rana and Ross adhere
to evolutionary age dates then they should accept the dates for the H. erectus
fossils from Java, Indonesia, which have been dated to possibly as late as 27,000
years ago,25 even though
it contradicts their model. This is yet another example of how they are selective
in the age dates they accept, largely depending on how each conforms to their model.
According to the RTB model hominids such as H. erectus ‘existed for
a time—then went extinct—disappearing (in almost all cases) before Adam
and Eve were created’ (p. 175). As mentioned earlier, the authors appear to
have settled for a creation date of Adam and Eve about 40,000 years ago, and so
H. erectus would not be expected to exist any later than this.
Dentition
Rana and Ross also make much out of teeth development patterns, insisting that ‘H.
erectus/ergaster (like the great apes today) grew rapidly and skipped adolescence’,
and that ‘this creature did not have the time provided by adolescence for
additional brain growth and learning’ (p. 174). However, using data from a
longitudinal study of Montreal French-Canadian children, Smith recently found that:
‘It is also possible to find children with patterns of dental maturation similar
to KNM-WT 15000’s pattern in the Montreal sample. Therefore, neither the discrepancy
between skeletal age and dental age alone nor the pattern of dental maturation as
assessed by dental stages precludes a human-like pattern of growth, including an
adolescent growth spurt, for this individual.’26
Hence, Rana and Ross’ claim that H. erectus ‘had more in common
with apes than with human beings’ (p. 174), and as being ‘not
made in God’s image’ (p. 175), is false.
Neandertals
Chapter 12 appears to have as its agenda the portrayal of Neandertals as dunderheads,
and after a Rana and Ross clubbing, the Neandertals unsurprisingly emerge as mere
creatures that ‘behaved more like animals than like humans’ (p. 196).
Even the authors admit that some of the Neandertal’s morphology was due to
cold adaptation, but predictably any differences are played up. But how important
are these minor differences in morphology, particularly given the variation seen
in ‘modern humans’? The following statement by proponents of the multiregional
school suggests differences in morphology are not important, nor universal:
‘Neandertals have much larger browridges than living Europeans, and they are
always continuously developed across the forehead. A significant number of recent
and living Indigenous Aboriginal Australians have large, continuously developed
browridges. Does this make them more primitive than Europeans? Does this make the
Neandertals modern?’27
Neandertal–modern-human hybrids
There is evidence of interbreeding between Neandertals and humans categorized as
‘modern’ in the recently re-dated Hahnöfersand man. From a progressive
creation point of view, this means that ‘nonhuman’ Neandertals interbred
with the descendants of Adam and Eve (as recent as 7,500 years ago), and therefore
contributed to the human gene pool, and so fatally undermines the RTB human origins
model.
Rana and Ross play down suggestions of hybrids between ‘humans’ and
Neandertals, such as the Lagar Velho Child and a lower jaw discovered from Romania.
However, there is evidence of interbreeding between Neandertals and humans categorized
as ‘modern’ in the recently re-dated Hahnöfersand man.28 From a progressive creation point of view, this
means that ‘nonhuman’ Neandertals interbred with the descendants of
Adam and Eve (as recent as 7,500 years ago), and therefore contributed to the human
gene pool, and so fatally undermines the RTB human origins model.
Teeth
As with Homo erectus, Rana and Ross argue that developmental dissimilarities
break the ties between humans and Neandertals. They flaunt a study29 on dental growth as showing that ‘Neanderthals
matured much more rapidly than humans’, with the researchers attesting ‘that
Neanderthals and humans must be distinct species’ (p. 191). However, more
recent research has indicated this study to be flawed, with the new evidence being
that Neandertal ‘tooth growth and, by extension, somatic growth, appears to
be encompassed within the modern human range of interpopulation variation’.30
Genetic differences?
Rana and Ross argue that the ‘cumulative weight of genetic evidence appears
to decisively sever the link between Neanderthals and humans’ (p. 186). However,
using evolutionary assumption based genetic studies to club the Neandertals is a
two way street. For example, recent modeling by one team of researchers led them
to conclude ‘that while modern humans first emerged in Africa, living human
populations carry within them a substantial genetic inheritance that had its origins
in non-African archaics.’31
Any such assimilation between ‘modern humans’ and ‘archaics’
is fatal to the RTB model. Given that evolutionary based genetic studies are tied
to molecular clocks, which are based on unproven and problematic assumptions,32 one needs to be cautious
in accepting any finding from these types of studies.
Did Neandertals have souls?
One would expect strong arguments to back up audacious claims, such as the following:
‘When all archaeological evidence is critically considered, it appears as
though Neanderthals possessed some capacity for emotional expression and a level
of intelligence, similar to that of the great apes today. Yet they clearly lived
in nonhuman ways. To say that Neanderthals behaved like spiritual beings made in
God’s image stretches the evidence beyond reasonable limits. The archeological
evidence more closely coincides with the RTB model’s perspective on these
creatures—they behaved more like animals than like humans’ (p. 195–196).
The Neandertals had quite a culture inventory, and buried their dead. This in itself
should be ample evidence that the Neandertals were fully human.
Instead, the arguments by Rana and Ross for Neandertals being behaviourally inferior,
being limited in emotional capacity, lacking symbolic thought, and lacking speech,
are very weak. The Neandertals had quite a culture inventory, and buried their dead.33 This in itself should be
ample evidence that the Neandertals were fully human. Perhaps Rana and Ross will
instead heed the following words of evolutionary anthropologist Ralph Holloway:
‘One cannot help but wonder what modern archaeologists would conclude after
studying all Eskimo, Aleut, Australian, Bushman, and tropical rainforest aboriginal
material cultures if only stone tools remained. No language? No ritual?
No concern for the dead, spirits, etc.? … And if, by chance, no
archaeological or ethnographic evidence was available, one would have to conclude
on the basis of brain size alone (given our obsession with this variable) that Neanderthals
were more advanced, behaviorally, than living groups whose languages and social
customs still defy complete understanding among 20th century anthropologists.’34
Larger brains
The authors finally acknowledge that Neandertal brains ‘slightly exceeded’
those of humans in terms of size, but qualify this by saying ‘their brain-size
to body-mass ratio was smaller’ (p. 181). They claim that the ‘anatomical
evidence, while not entirely conclusive, increasingly indicates that Neanderthals
lacked the capacity for speech and language’ (p. 193). Concerning speech and
language, Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas are two key brain regions. Evolutionist
Holloway, after examining endocasts of Neandertals, concluded that:
Photo by David Green
Gibraltar 1 Neandertal cranium. From very meager evidence Rana and Ross preposterously
conclude: ‘Neanderthals lacked the necessary brain structure to think and act in
a way that reflects God’s image’ (p. 197), as if such a structure exists and can
be quantified on endocasts.
‘I can find no reason to assert that Neanderthals had smaller or more “primitive”
Broca’s areas than did modern Homo. Moreover, there is no evidence
for any critical weakness of organization or mass in what would be the so-called
Wernicke’s area of superior but caudal temporal lobe, and anterior inferior
parietal zones.’35
Also, with respect to what can be deduced about the anatomy of the throat, evidence
indicates that ‘physiology does not deny the Neanderthalers a voice’.36 So much for Neandertals
lacking speech and language. Furthermore, Rana and Ross make the following statement:
‘Compared to Neanderthal’s brains, the human brain has a larger parietal
lobe. This brain region plays a vital role in language, math reasoning, sense of
self-identity, and religious experience’ (p. 197).
Even if the finding37,38 (cited by Rana and Ross) of a larger parietal
lobe in ‘humans’ hold up it is doubtful that it has any significance.
For starters, as acknowledged by author Bruner,39
there are severe limitations in studying endocast morphology, particularly from
fossil specimens. This also applies to the study by Holloway quoted above.
Rana and Ross then make the following preposterous conclusion:
‘Such a profound biological distinction explains the behavioral difference
between Neanderthals and people. The Neanderthals’ brain shape and structure
provided no capacity for behaving the way human beings behave. Neanderthals lacked
the necessary brain structure to think and act in a way that reflects God’s
image’ (p. 197).
Even if Neandertals had a fractionally smaller parietal lobe, they still had one,
and their brains were just as large. From such meager evidence it seems extraordinary
to deduce that Neandertals ‘lacked the necessary brain structure to think
and act in a way that reflects God’s image’. Bruner reported:
‘Considering the relative values, Neanderthals display a larger frontal and
a shorter parietal chord, while modern humans have a relatively greater development
of the parietal value.’40
Does the Neandertals displaying a larger frontal chord then mean they were smarter
than ‘modern humans’, as the frontal lobe is associated with planning
and higher cognitive abilities? To make such an assertion would be as absurd as
insisting they could not ‘think and act in a way that reflects God’s
image’ because they display a shorter parietal chord. Also, given the enormous
range of brain size in humans, there would be plenty of humans with much smaller
parietal lobes per se than the Neandertals. Are these people also beyond
reflecting God’s image? It seems Rana and Ross’ conclusions are utterly
going beyond the evidence.
Humans vs chimps
Chapter 13 looks at the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees, and
argues that they could not be the result of evolutionary processes, but are instead
from intelligent design. Chapter 14 is a useful discussion about junk DNA, showing
how what was once considered solid evidence for evolution is now evidence against
the theory, because junk DNA is increasingly shown to be functional. The last chapter
is essentially a recap of their main findings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the RTB human origins model is unfortunately unbiblical, and also
has many flawed arguments. Rana and Ross state, ‘The testability of the RTB
creation model based on the Bible can be used by the scientific community to access—and
further assess—truth abut the natural realm’ (p. 248). The reader can
decide whether the RTB model is the path of ‘truth’ they want to follow,
and where following this path may lead them.
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
References
- Mortenson, T., The Great Turning Point, Master Books,
Green Forest, AZ, 2004. Return to text.
- Mortenson, T., Philosophical naturalism and the age of the
earth: are they related? The Master’s Seminary Journal 15(1):71–92,
Spring 2004; <creation.com/naturalism-church>. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, Master Books, Green Forest, AR,
p. 105, 2004. Return to text.
- Sarfati, ref. 3, pp. 67–105. Return
to text.
- Sarfati, ref. 3, p. 105. Return to text.
- See also Mortenson, T., But from the
beginning of … the institution of marriage? <creation.com/beginning>,
1 November 2004. Return to text.
- Ham, K.A., The Lie: Evolution, Master Books, El Cajon,
CA, p. 73, 1987. Return to text.
- Stambaugh, J.,
Creation, suffering and the problem of evil, Journal of Creation
10(3):391–404, 1996. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., The Fall: a cosmic catastrophe:
Hugh Ross’s blunders on plant death in the Bible, Journal of Creation
19(3):60–64, 2005; <creation.com/plant_death>.
Return to text.
- Sarfati, ref. 3, pp. 139, 287. Return
to text.
- Ross, H. Genesis One, Dinosaurs and Cavemen, Reasons
to Believe <reasons.org/kidsspace/dinocave.shtml?main>, 15 March 2003.
As cited in: Sarfati, ref. 3, p. 306. Return to text.
- Holloway, R.L., The poor brain of Homo sapiens neanderthalensis:
See what you please … ; in: Delson, E. (Ed.), Anceors: The Hard Evidence,
Alan R. Liss, New York, p. 319, 1985. Return to text.
- McDougall, I., Brown, F.H. and Fleagle, J.G., Stratigraphic
placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia, Nature 433:733–736,
2005. Return to text.
- McDougal et al., ref. 13, p. 733. Return to text.
- Presumably referring to Wieland, C. and Sarfati, J., Ethiopian ‘earliest humans’ find: a severe blow
to the beliefs of Hugh Ross and similar ‘progressive creationist’ compromise
views, <creation.com/pc-ethiopia>, 12 June 2003. Return
to text.
- White, T.D. et al., Pleistocene Homo
sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, Nature 423:742–747,
2003. Return to text.
- Wilford, J.N., Fossil skulls offer first glimpse of early
human faces, The New York Times <www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/science/12FOSSIL.html>,
12 June 2003. Return to text.
- Clark, J.D. et al., Stratigraphic, chronological
and behavioural contexts of Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash,
Ethiopia, Nature 423:747, 2003. Return
to text.
- Line, P., Fossil evidence for alleged
apemen—Part 2: non-Homo hominids, Journal of Creation
19(1):33–42, 2005. Return to text.
- Marchal, F., A new morphometric analysis of the hominid pelvic
bone, Journal of Human Evolution 38:362, 2000.
Return to text.
- Day, M.H., Omo human skeletal remains, Nature
222:1136, 1969. Return to text.
- Line, P., Fossil evidence for alleged
apemen—Part 1: the genus Homo, Journal of Creation
19(1):22–32, 2005. Return to text.
- Aiello, L. and Dean, C., An Introduction to Human Evolutionary
Anatomy, Academic Press, London, pp. 192–193, 1990. Return
to text.
- Ruff, C.B. and Walker, A., Body size and shape; in: Walker,
A. and Leakey, R. (Eds), The Nariokotome Homo erectus Skeleton,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 252, 1993. Return to
text.
- Swisher, C.C. III, Rink, W.J., Anton, S.C., et al,
Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential contemporaneity with Homo sapiens
in Southeast Asia, Science 274:1870–1874, 1996.
Return to text.
- Smith, S.L., Skeletal age, dental age, and the maturation
of KNM-WT 15000, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 125:105,
2004. Return to text.
- Wolpoff, M. and Caspari, R., Race and Human Evolution,
Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 331–332, 1997. Return to
text.
- Line, P.,
Upper Paleolithic blues: Consequences of recent dating fiasco on human evolutionary
prehistory, Journal of Creation 19(2):7–9, 2005.
Return to text.
- Ramirez Rozzi, F.V. R. and Bermudez de Castro, J.M., Surprisingly
rapid growth in Neanderthals, Nature 428:936–939,
2004. Return to text.
- Guatelli-Steinberg, D. et al., Anterior tooth growth
periods in Neandertals were comparable to those of modern humans, Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci. USA 102:14197–14202, 2005. Return
to text.
- Eswaran, V., Harpending, H. and Rogers, A.R., Genomics refutes
an exclusively African origin of humans, Journal of Human Evolution
49:17, 2005. Return to text.
- Lubenow, M.L., Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment
of Human Fossils, Revised and Updated, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
pp. 222–235, 2004. Return to text.
- Lubenow, ref. 32, pp. 236–257.
Return to text.
- Holloway, ref. 12, p. 322. Return to
text.
- Holloway, ref. 12, p. 321. Return to
text.
- Jordan, P., Neanderthal: Neanderthal man and the story
of human origins, Sutton Publishing, Gloucestershire, p. 57, 1999.
Return to text.
- Bruner, E., Geometric morphometrics and paleoneurology: brain
shape evolution in the genus Homo, Journal of Human Evolution
47:279–303, 2004. Return to text.
- Bruner, E., Manzi, G. and Arsuaga, L., Encephalization and
allometric trajectories in the genus Homo: Evidence from the Neandertal
and modern lineages, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. USA 100:15335–15340,
2003. Return to text.
- Bruner, ref. 37, pp. 290–292. Return
to text.
- Bruner, ref. 37, p. 286. Return to text.
|
