For a copy of this document in Microsoft Word format, click here.

The creation of man and the scientific evidence of evolution

by Scott A. Jensen

 

    Since the inception of the theory of evolution, the debate has raged over the truth of religion versus the fact of science.  In the 19th century, Charles Darwin developed a theory which attempted to explained the origins and development of life and satisfied his secular view of the world.  However, the theory itself is a religion rather than a fact because of the faith it places in unfounded speculation and assumption.  The problems with his theory are numerous.  However, the problems of the theory are not what is discussed in the mainstream.  Instead, the theory is accepted as fact with no mention of the problems associated with the theory.

    This paper does not attempt to address the entire theory of evolution.  Numerous books have been written which address the micro[1] and macro[2] levels of evolution.  Instead, a presentation on the creation of man will be discussed, with a focus on the theory of evolution as it applies to man’s existence.  The idea of theistic evolution will also be discussed to show it’s relevance in both the scientific and religious communities.

    It is hoped that this discussion will demonstrate to the Christian community the problems associated with the theory of evolution as well as the problems of merging evolutionary theory with creationist doctrine.  Theories should be challenged when evidence is discovered that refutes the practicality or application of that theory.  This paper will address the inconsistencies used in the scientific study of evolution as well as the evidence which denies the credibility of Darwin ’s claims. 

Darwin… In the beginning

            In his book “On the Origin of the Species”, Charles Darwin looks at how life developed from a purely materialistic viewpoint.[3]  In other words, no outside influence of any kind was allowed in the creation or development of any living thing.  All mechanisms for life had to come from the elements of the solar system itself.  There could be no God to have any play what-so-ever in the outcome.  Instead, life was required to generate spontaneously with no outside influence.  The theory reflected Darwin ’s atheistic belief system and would have no inclusion of God in the origin or development of any species, in any capacity.

            For the believer, this places God in quite an interesting position.  A non-caring observer where it does not matter what happens nor how it happens.  Under Darwin ’s viewpoint, God is relegated off to an bystander of a system He has no control over.  Biblical evidence contradicts this viewpoint and will be discussed in a different section.

            The theory claims that all life originated from some sort of primeval slush which formed on the earth shortly after the molten lava of our world cooled.  Atmospheric conditions in such a world are assumed to be quite a hostile environment.  However, during this period of sulfuric atmosphere and acidic water, it is assumed that the right quantity of atoms combined into molecules and eventually into the first living cell.

            In itself, this is quite a miracle of statistics.  One example seems to show the difficulties with this theory.  If fifteen parts of a meat grinder are thrown into a burlap sack, and the sack is shaken for several billion years, the parts will not spontaneously assemble themselves and produce a working machine.  Even the most basic of the building blocks of life contains many more than fifteen parts with much more complex interaction between them than a meat grinder.  Yet, this is exactly what evolution proposes.  Statisticians have summed up the chances of this happening in one word, impossible. 

            The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record is the major problem with the theory of evolution.  Numerous fossils have been recovered of both living and extinct species.  Yet the mutated, evolutionary species have not only failed to survive, the proof of their existence is nowhere to be found.  It is precisely this lack of evidence that turns the theory of evolution from a scientific principle into a faith based initiative.  Darwin recognized this major problem with his theory and stated the question,

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?  Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? [4]

 

            To add to the difficulty, the fossils that are found are fully intact.  The creatures are specialized for their unique abilities with no hint of pre-development of additional species.  The creatures found in the fossil record are complete with all their salient features and traits.  In cases where the species still lives today, it is nearly indistinguishable from it’s fossil ancestor.  This does not point toward an ever changing grouping of species, but to a stable development from the beginning. 

            Not only are the lack of transitional forms a factor to consider, but the transition itself has problems associated with it.  Consider the evolution of the flying bat.[5] [6] Under the theory of evolution, the species is assumed to have developed from the insectivorous quadruped, or the shrew.  Using subtle changes over an extended period of time, the fingers of the shrew would grow from their short finger length to the much longer wing length of the flying bat.  During this same time, flesh would have grown between the fingers to produce the wing surface.  One can see how the species would survive as a shrew scurrying on the ground and as a bat flying through the air.  But, what about the transitional stage?  A mutation of this type would have to occur in more than one generation of off-spring.  Consider the transitional form with finger bones the length of half-a-wing.  This species could not walk due to the finger length and could not fly due to the lack of wing area. 

Evolutionary mutations that are detrimental to the species would force the species to become extinct through the process of natural selection. This then begs the question over how such a change could survive. How could a species survive that could barely move?  Why would natural selection allow such a creature to survive?  Assuming the creature could somehow beat the odds and work with such awkward fingers, how would it obtain the mobility needed for survival.  We are left with the fore legs as the sole source of movement.  However, these too would be going through their own changes from quadrapedal movement to apparatus for hanging upside-down.  Again, the movement issue is challenged.  A transitional creature of this type is not only improbable, but impossible.  The fact is that these changes could not occur over time, but would have to be multiple immediate changes to physiology along with immediate changes to instinct.  There is no means to account for multiple changes through natural selection let alone multiple simultaneous changes in a small amount of time.

So, how did Darwin address problems of this magnitude?  Simple put, he didn’t.[7]  In his prime work on the theory of evolution, he addresses the problem with a simple, “I think such difficulties have very little weight.”[8]  Instead, he goes on to address the lesser problem of flying squirrels and their possible development.  In the case of the flying squirrel, each subtle change could, arguable, be a useful change.  He uses this example, along with a similar creature, the flying lemur, to address the flying bat issue.  However, this does not address the difficulties of the movement issue of a transitional flying bat. 

            The same problem with mobility that occurs with the study and evolution of the flying bat occurs with the evolution of man.  In the case of man, a quadrapedal ape is assumed to have evolved into a bipedal man.  The question with this transition is no different from the walking to flying transition.  A creature moving on all four legs can move faster and has a better chance at survival due to the protection of internal organs.  The question then remains, how would natural selection choose a less desirable form over a more efficient and protected form?[9]  Evolutionists have come up with several theories to explain why such a change could occur.  The most accepted appears to be the woods-to-grasslands theory.[10]  This theory claims that some wooded areas became grasslands and imposed the change upon the early hominids.  However, there is no evidence that this type of habitat change occurred in Africa , where it would have been required for any early ancestors to man.[11]  The theory also begs the question as to why the apes would have stayed in the now grasslands rather than migrating to other forest areas.

            Numerous fossil evidence has been produced of creatures who purportedly possess both man-like and ape-like characteristics.  In several cases, a few teeth are used as justification for a new species.  In others, portions of a skull are used.  Reconstruction of each of these has occurred with several assumptions placed on how the estimated model should be built.  In every case demonstrated, preconceived notions are used and build upon the established assumptions. The assumptions have often proved to be completely off base.[12]

            The theory of evolution would have us believe that man, as a primate, originated from the ape and the ape from the prosimians.  However, there have been no transitional forms found between ape and prosimians.  Given the number of fossils found in the last century or so, it is quite surprising to the evolutionists that no fossil evidence has been found.  Given that multitude of possible mutations and changes for any given species, there should be a near-infinite variety of fossil evident between every subtle and major change.  But none are to be found.  Evolutionists have been perplexed by this lack of evidence.[13] 

            In fact, the fossil evidence that is found for living species matches the characteristics of the creatures we found n the wild.  In short, when fossils are found, it appears that the creature originated with all it’s characteristics and abilities intact.  This has been a noticeable problem for evolutionists.  A leading evolutionist, Elwyn Simons, stated it so, “In spite of recent finds, the time and place of origin of order of Primates remains shrouded in mystery. “[14]

            However, the lack of evidence has not slowed down the speculation of evolution nor the search for additional evidence.  The search has not been from a completely scientific approach.  In every case, evolution has been taken as the fact and evidence to support the theory has been sought.  A normal scientific , unbiased approach would have us look at the evidence then find a theory to meet the facts.  Evolutionists would not have it that way.  Instead, a search for the missing evidence has been sought that meets the theory.  Questions which have arisen due to problems with either the theory or the evidence have conveniently been ignored.

 

Ape to Man [15]

            The decision over whether a fossil or skull should be included as an ancestor is normally limited to four aspects of the creature being studied, the size of the brain, the posture of the creature studied and the shape of jaw/dentition the creature possessed as well as the estimated date of creature lived on earth.  The evolutionists have assumed the theory to be a fact, and then used only the evidence that supports that preconceived notion to prove their claim.  This is hardly a scientific approach since it is, by definition, biased from the very beginning. 

 

Early Human Phylogeny[16]

 

            But, some of contemporary evidence is bent to their theory as well.  When the brain of a species is studied to determine where in the evolutionary chain it fits, the numbers are often skewed to boost their arguments.  Contemporary man has typical cranial capacities of 900 – 1,600.  However, some of  the Australian Aborigines have brains of 850 cubic centimeters. [17]  Others have been noted to have brains as large as 2,200 cubic centimeters.  The Aborigines are not apes, but fully functioning, intelligent, humans.  In the same way, the large brain volumes do not create a new species but still identify these individuals as fully human.  Apes, on the other hand, have a maximum cranial capacity of 750 cubic centimeters. [18]

the cranial capacity may change depending on the age and sex. This is why many specialists reach to the mutual agreement that the cranial capacity is not a reliable means of measurement.[19]

 

            The debate over exactly which of the various skeletons and skulls leads from ape to man is a debate all unto itself.  Evolutionists do not usually debate which species were ancestors, but what impact they had on the development of man.  Stephen Jay Gould, a leading evolution proponent has drawn up his preferred list[20] of man’s ancestors as: Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. 

            As a general discussion of the evolution to man, Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilius, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens will be discussed.  The species, Ramapithecus is added to Gould’s list as this is another often suggested species with a link to man.  Although all evolutionists do not draw these in a straight line of ape to man, each has been used in some capacity to show mutation and evolution.

 

Ramapithecus

            Some believe Ramapithecus to be one of the earliest ancestor to man.  However, the evidence of this species is poor at best.  Consisting of only a handful of teeth and fragments of mandible, some have reconstructed the jaw to be more round, as is the case with man, than U-shaped which would be more in-line with an ape.[21]  This gives the impression that the species is somewhere between man and ape.  However, due to the poor quantity and quality of bone evidence as well as the assumptions used to create the U-shaped palate, even proponents of evolution have been reluctant to accept this species as a predecessor of man and some have even dismissed it outright.

 

On the left is the skull of a contemporary orangutan, and on the right is the jaw bone of the fossil Ramapithecus. As observed, Ramapithecus structure and teeth characteristics. [22]

 

 

            Dr. Robert Eckhardt, a paleoanthropologist at Pennsylvania State University , has done his own research regarding the Ramapithecus samples.  He compared upwards of twenty-four measurements of teeth on five species of the fossil ape Dryopithecus, a fossil equivalent of Ramapithecus, Kenyapithecus as well as the living chimpanzees.  His research concluded that the variation among the chimpanzee species was greater than the variation between Ramapithecus and Dryopithecus.  With such differences, it should be considered as part of the Dryopithecus.  This, in turn, makes Ramapithecus an ape with no relation to man.[23] 

But, this is not the only evidence to exclude jaw shape as being related to man.  A living baboon, Theropithecus galada, has a mandibular and dental shape similar to man’s.  The incisors are small compared to the remaining teeth, as seen in the jaw of man.  Even the face shape is more flat as you would expect in man, rather than ape.  Yet, this species lives in the upper elevations in Ethiopia .[24]  Through examination of this living ape, it is apparent that there is no relation to man in this species.  With such stunning, living evidence at hand, one would expect a scientific approach to dismiss jaw shape as evidence.  In 1979, such a dismissal occurred with a study indicating that Ramapithecus was nothing more than a type of orangutan.[25]

To the defense of evolutionists, most have dismissed Rampithecus as not being related to Homo sapien lineage.  However, even today, it’s not uncommon to pick up a text book or study showing the earlier origins of man pointing to this species.

 

Australopithecus

            However differently Ramapithecus may be seen in scientific cir c les, Australopithecus does not have the same wavering opinions, often being accepted as the missing link and ancestor to man.[26] [27] The two most often discussed of the Australopithecus species are Australopithecus africanus and Australopithecus robustus.  The two differ in the size of their jaws and, to a certain extent, the shape of their teeth.  However, recent scholarship by Dr. Richard Leakey shows that these are not separate species, but the male and female of the same species.[28]  A third specimen, commonly called “Lucy” is known as the Australopithecus afarensis.  Finally, the previous discovery of Zinjanthropus bosei, by Dr. Louis Leakey, has also been shown to be a variant of Australopithecus known as Australopithecus bosei.[29]  With this information at hand, all four will be discussed as different samples of the same Australopithecus species.  Arguments surrounding one will apply equally to the others.

 

    

Three photographs (not to s c ale) c us afarensis, and to the right is Homo sapiens (a modern human).[30]

 

As shown in the discussion of Ramapithecus, evolutionists have used the shape of the mandible to place this species in the chain of evolution leading up to man.  Australopithecus is seen in the same light, with the same arguments.  As shown in the previous photographs, the Australopithecus dentition has similarities with both human and ape jaws.  However, the skull and jaw bones are entirely simian in nature.  The supporting facts discussed with Ramapithecus still apply to Australopithecus; neither teeth nor jaws can show a correlation with the development of human beings.

            The brain size finds similar arguments; with a size of 550 cubic centimeters ore less,[31] the creatures possessed the intellect of an ape.  There has been no evidence of any type of tool usage in any of the excavations.  The life style and intellectual ability of the species have been the room of discussions about the brain size, limb length and hand construction.  Some debates even abound as to how much the Australopithecus swung from trees.  At any rate, the size of the brain cavity of the skulls shows a maximum volume of about 1/3 the size of man or about the same as apes today.  These facts taken together show an ape mentality with no indication of advancing beyond that of apes today.

 

    

Three views of Australopithecus skulls.  From Left to Right: Australopithecus Afarensis reconstruction,[32] Australopithecus Robustus,[33] and Australopithecus Bosei[34]

 

            In addition to the skulls and jaws, there are the Laetoli footprints which were found in Tanzania .  Studies of the prints indicate that there was a species that walked upright.  As can be seen in the pictures below, the foot is shaped identical to our own.  The movement pattern indicates that two or three creatures were present (depending on how the prints are interpreted).  However, not all agree that the creatures who made these impressions were Australopithecus afarensis.[35] 

            There is no direct connection with the footprints to any Australopithecus example through either fossil or other evidence.  Dr. Russell H. Tuttle, a noted paleontologist, was asked by Mary Leakey, one of the leading researchers of this site, to examine the footprints.  He concluded that the footprints were not from Australopithecus afarensis, but from Homo sapiens.[36]  Dr. Tuttle asserts that some evolution scientists have used their preconceived notions of the evidence without examining the proof of their own claims.[37]  "(If the) footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus" [38]  

    

Three views of the Laetoli footprints.[39] [40] [41]

            Other scientists, such as Dr. Charles Owens have done their own research on the foot of the Australopithecus to determine how the creature walked and the shape of its’ foot.[42]  His research indicates that the foot of Australopithecus was shaped like an ape.   Even the noted Australopithecus afarensis specimen known as Lucy was known to walk bent over as has been shown by studies of her foot and leg bones.[43]   The finding that Lucy did not walk upright is a blow to the evolutionist as the bipedal walking of Australopithecus has been used as proof in the past that this is one of the missing links.  With a relatively short humarus and long forearm bones[44], Lucy was forced to assume a more four-legged type movement.  It is the assumption of evolutionists that man did not live on the earth during the time of these footprints’ that has forced the Australopithecus model onto the footprints.  Evolutionists are scrambling for an answer as to how they originated.  However, the creationist has no such problems to contend with.

KNMER 1470 skull.[45]

 

            A further problem with the Australopithecus evolutionary lineage to man was the finding of the KNMER 1470 skull in 1972 near Lake Rudolph , Kenya [46].  This skull was found in a geological layer which places it prior to any known Australopithecus.[47]  With a cranium capacity of approximately 750 cubic centimeters, there is question as to how this creature could fit into the evolutionary line.  Through various methods of dating, the skull has been placed at 2.9 million years old[48].  This places a huge problem in the evolutionists lap as there is no way to correlate the current evolution theory with such a brain size during this time period.  "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man". "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings". "1470 leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change".[49] 

            Some creationist researchers have concluded that skull 1470 was actually human, based on the evidence that many classified this skull as Homo sapiens due to the shape of the skull.  However, the estimated size of the brain of this creature is within the range of the size of modern gorilla brains.  This seems to indicate that the species was an ape rather than a man.[50]  However, this does not support the argument that this is a link between Australopithecus and man as the location of the find within the rock strata does not support the species following Australopithecus, but preceding it.  The finding of this skull in such a deep layer of rock strata places the skull earlier than even many of the apes evolutionists would have us believe are in our lineage.  No satisfactory answer from evolutionists has been produced as to how this skull could exist during this time.  If a 750 cubic centimeter brain existed prior to the Australopithecus species from which man supposedly developed, then how did this questioned species arrive?  Evolutionists are split on how to classify this sample with Australopithecus and Homo habilius being the usual species of discussion.

            Another unsatisfactory fossil was discovered in Kinapoi , Kenya in 1965.  The fossil, known as KP 271, was of a well preserved elbow along with a portion of the upper left arm.  The difficulty arises due to the determined age of the specimen, 4.0 - 4.5 million years old.[51] [52]  The sample was assigned to Australopithecus robustus by researchers W. W. Howells and his assistant B. Patterson. Both admitted to the similar nature of this bone to Homo sapiens, but chose to assign it to Australopithecus due to the age of the fossil.  Dr. Henry David, University of Southern California at Davis , conducted his own research on the fossil.  His computer studies indicated that it was indistinguishable from modern man.  Other researcher, such at David Pilbeam and Brigette Senuts also assigned the fossil to Homo sapiens.  Accepted scientific processes would indicate that if the evidence does not meet the theory, then the theory must be wrong.  Instead, however, Howells sums it up best,

The humeral fragment from Kinapoi, with a date of about 4.4 million, could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson and myself in 1967 (or by much more searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at that time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element.[53]

 

The bias of the evolutionists is quite apparent with this sample.  Science is not being conducted here because the proof contradicts the theory of evolution.  Instead, we are left with a sample that is assigned to a species that obviously did not have such limbs.

            When the full evidence is evaluated on Australopithecus, the small brain size, bent over posture, knuckle dragging, and lack of tool use, we find a specialized ape.  There is no evidence of a connection with a lineage of man except the theory of evolution itself.  Dr. Leakey summarized it best

The new discoveries of the australopithecines of arm bones and leg bones have indicated that these were long-armed, short-legged knuckle walkers. They were not bipedal, upright walkers as had been maintained and, furthermore, they are simply apes. This has been further substantiated by the discovery of what is called Theropithecus galada which is an Ethiopian baboon, with a dental structure remarkable like the australopithecines. They were thought to be like men because they resembled man a little more that most apes do. And so the australopithecines have hit the dust.[54]

 

Evolutionists are looking for the proof for their theory, but the fossilized evidence, when examined fully from an unbiased source, tends to disprove evolution from ape to man.  However, the creationist has no such problems to contend with as each species is formed fully in it’s own right.

 

Homo Habilius

            Evolutionists have long argued that Homo habilius was the missing link between Australopithecus and Homo erectus.  This was partly based on the shape of the skull.  However, a large weight was placed on the assumption that the skeleton of Homo habilius was more man-like than previous skeletons.  There was no evidence to support this assumption.  Instead, it was expected based on a skull which was more human shaped than previously earthed specimens.[55]  It was pure speculation that the limbs should also be more man shaped. 

            In July 1986, a discovery was unearthed that changed the assumptions surrounding the Homo habilius skeleton.  Since this hominid was seen to have a more human shaped skull, the assumption was that the proportions and length of the limbs would be close to what is seen with modern man today.  Apes are known for having leg and arm bones of equal or near equal length while men possess longer legs.  This produced the assumption that habilius would also have longer legs.  But, skeletal remains were not commonly found with the discovered skulls of Homo habilius.  The discovery of OH 62 limb bones in Tanzania [56] has thrown the assumptions completely off.  Although the skeletal remains were not intact, reconstruction of the leg and arm bones has shown that the species was closely aligned with apes. 

OH 24, a Homo habilius skull discovered in Tanzania .[57]

 

            However, Homo habilius has a cranium shaped somewhat similar to man which is why it was classified as Homo to begin with.  The timeframes involved with the evolution of limbs and brains simultaneous, in conjunction with the Australopithecus has tended to confuse the proposed lineage of man.  In other words, no-one seems to know how Homo habilius fits into the picture since the evidence of brain size and limb size seem to contradict all previously assumed models.[58] 

            Another assumption made about Homo habilius is the use of tools.  The name Homo habilius was actually given to the species based on nearby findings of tools and roughly translates to “handy man.”  Although tools have been found in the same horizontal plane in as the Homo habilius skulls, there is no evidence that the Homo habilius used these tools themselves.  It has been argued that these tools belong to Homo habilius while others have argued that meat-eating man left their tools while hunting Australopithecus.[59]  Scientists who studied the evidence at Olduvai, Tanzania, have concluded that the evidence of bones (which indicate the use of cutting tools to some degree) and Homo habilius skulls “can be created through various means, not all of which are related to hominid activities.”[60]  This tends to shed some doubt on the use of tools by Homo habilius. Therefore, the skull volume of 600 cubic centimeters does not indicate any increase in intelligence.  This figure, as with skull 1470, falls easily within the range of variation with apes today.

            In short, the skeletal evidence shows another specialized ape closely related to Australopithecus.  However, as was previously shown with the KN-MER 1470 skull, this species lived along-side Australopithecus, not as a descendent of it.  We still have a knuckle dragging ape. With no links to man.

 

Homo erectus  [61] [62]

            With Homo erectus, we have three specimens to discuss with the commonly known names of Java Man, Peking Man and the Turkana Boy.  The Java Man and Peking Man samples have estimated brain sizes of 900[63] - 1,000 cubic centimeters[64] and 1,043 cubic centimeters respectively.  This seems to  place them in the range of modern man today of 850 cubic centimeters to 1,600 cubic centimeters.  However, the finds of Java and Peking have difficulties which will be discussed below.  Through modern dating methods, scientists have shown that at least one population of the Homo erectus existed simultaneously with contemporary man.[65] 

            Although all Homo erectus evidence are not frauds, the exhibition of Java man’s remains in 1891 was not designed to expand the knowledge of the scientific community, but promote the concept of evolution.  The finder of the Java man fossils was Dr. Eugene Dubois.  During his excavation, Dr. Dubois unearthed the top portion of a skull as well as a three teeth and a thigh bone.  However, he concealed the evidence of two additional modern human skulls, known as the Wadjak skulls,[66] which he found in the same geological layer and within the same locality.  The modern skulls were obviously Homo sapiens.  They were hid to grant credence to his claim of a missing link. 

            The Wadjak skull find was suppressed for over 30 years[67]  to aid in the acceptance of Java man as a true ancestor to man.  Had the modern skulls been produced at the same time, it would have shed doubt on the connection of the thigh bone with the skull cap.  Years later, Dr. Dubois dismissed the find himself, ““Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons …”[68]  Dubois is not the only member of the scientific community to feel this way.  Dr. Rudolph Virchow, a contemporary of Dr. Dubois,  dismissed the skull cap as a giant gibbon and saw no connection of the skull cap with the thigh bone.[69]

           

  

Skull cap finding of Java Man[70] and the Weidenreich reconstruction of Peking Man.[71]

 

            The Peking Man specimens have also been classified as Homo erectus, but this theory has it’s own problems with acceptance as a human ancestor.[72]  All fossil evidence, except for 2 teeth, mysteriously disappeared sometime between 1941 and 1945.[73]  Although there is a narrative describing the find, there is no physical evidence for dissenting scientists to scrutinize.  Interestingly enough, the fossil remains were held at close guard when their location was known and only strong proponents of evolution were granted access.  History has shown, that years after a discovery was accepted as a human ancestor, new information has surfaced that has forced the evolutionary scientists to accept the claims as false.  It is possible that this was nothing more than another fraud made out to appear legitimate.[74]

            evidence abounds to support the theory of intelligent men being in the area of the find.  The location contained a number of quartz crystals which were burned on one side.  The fossils were found in a collapsed cave with interior dimensions exceeding 100 feet.  This, along with other supporting evidence, seems to indicate a lime burning industry for stone tool making. [75]   No evolutionist has made the claim that Peking Man could have been advanced enough to mine stone or create tools.  However, the size of the cave where Peking Man was found, along with the burned quartz and other nearby archeological evidence seems to confirm the industry in this region.

            Possibly related to the collapsed cave is the condition of the skulls.  All twenty-four were smashed to one degree or another and none were complete.  It has been suggested that the skulls were crushed in order to eat the brains of the Peking men.  However, who did the eating is another issue. 

            The most reasonable explanation of all this evidence seems to indicate that men mined the limestone and ate the species known as Peking Man.  Even now monkey brains are considered a delicacy in some nations.  This sounds no different. 

            Finally, one must examine the construction of the Weidenreich model of the Peking Man.  This skull is the composition of four separate skulls assembled by anthropologist Dr. Franz Weidenreich.[76]  Questions abound over the accuracy of this model, especially considering the disappearance of the Peking Man skull fragments leaves no evidence remaining to either confirm or deny the accuracy of it’s shape.  scientific evidence is normally accepted as something that is repeatable.  The study of these remains is no longer possible and should be dismissed as unreliable evidence.  However, all finds are not as incomplete or inaccessible.

            The find of the Turkana Boy, on the other hand, is a nearly complete skeleton with skull.  This find shows a specimen which is estimated to be a juvenile of 9 – 12 years of age..  At this point in his development, his brain was 808 cubic centimeters; at adulthood, this was estimated to grow to over 900 cubic centimeters. [77]  Study of the skeleton shows that Turkana Boy could walk bipedally.  He also lacked the extended brow ridges found on either Java Man or Peking Man.  With a brain size within the acceptable limits of today’s humans, and walking on two legs, he would be able to blend into modern society.  The only difference we would notice today, would be the low forehead.  Turkana Boy was a man, but he was not the same as either Java Man or Peking Man.

 

KNM-WT 15000 , "Turkana Boy", Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster)[78] [79]

 

            The one leading factor which distinguishes Homo erectus from Homo sapiens in the thickness of the skull.  However, this suggestion has come under it’s own fire.  Dr. John Woodmorappe has studied the skull data of the Homo erectus as well as the Homo sapiens.  He has concluded that this is within the variation of current humans and can not, in and of itself, be used as a distinguishing factor between species.[80]  However, the two species remain regardless of this observation.

            The dentition is nearly identical to modern humans [81] and the accepted brain size of Homo erectus is well within the range of modern man of between 850 – 1600 cubic centimeters.  With this in mind, it is difficult to classify Homo erectus[82] as anything other than man.  The variations seen in the remains are easily accounted for as variations of race as we see today between European, Asian and African men today.

 

Homo Sapien

            The Homo sapiens have been divided into three major groups: Homo sapien neanderthal, Homo sapien cro-magnon, and Homo sapien sapien.  All of these groups of men walked upright, had brains in excess of 1,000 cubic centimeters and used tools.  These were not various degrees of evolution to modern man, but fully functioning men in their own right.  Each may have been a different race of men.  But they were men just the same.

            Through the line of Homo sapiens, Neanderthal man is the first in the evolutionary chain.  With specimens having 1250-1750 cubic centimeter size brains, it’s difficult to single them out as non-man or transitional man.   Discovered first in 1856, the remains were studied in Bonn University and determined to be a “typical man without any anatomical abnormality.”[83]  Further study by Rudolf Virchow determined that Neanderthal was a Homo sapien who suffered from severe arthritis.[84] 

            However, it is the reconstruction of Dr. Boule in 1908 that gave the primitive image in many people’s minds.[85]  The evidence leading to the reconstruction was partially based on a new Neanderthal skeleton found in Le Moustier village in France .  A dedicated evolutionist, Boule created a model which showed Neanderthal man hunched over rather than walking upright.  It was determined, without any real evidence, that Neanderthal man was a more primitive species somewhere between man and ape and therefore must have walked semi-erect.  This prevailing picture held for many years without paying any attention to the arthritis found in 1856.[86]  The prevailing opinion took hold that this was a new species and should be known as Homo neanderthalensis.

            Finally, in 1957, two anatomists[87] studied the 1908 remains and discovered why the Neanderthal model was shown as possessing a stooped walk.  The skeleton suffered from a debilitating disease which deformed the spinal cord and caused the man to walk with a stooped gait.  In addition to the 1908 find, this specimen also suffered from severe arthritis.  Their study proved that this was not a new species as Boule claimed, but a sub-species of Homo sapien.  Thus, the new species was called Homo sapien neanderthalensis.

            Additional studies have been conducted on the Neanderthal remains.  Each has concluded that although Neanderthal was muscular on par with body builders, he possessed no different characteristics of movement, intellect or speaking capabilities.[88]  The fact that they possessed large brains seems to have es c aped the attention of evolutionists.

 

A Cro-Magnon Man skull excavated from Carmel , Israel [89] and a Neanderthal man skull from La Ferrassie, France [90]

 

            The Cro-magnon man was discovered in 1868 in Les Eynies , France .  The species had a brain size of 1,600 cubic centimeters and was physically the same as modern man.  They used tools and left numerous references to an established culture in painting.[91]  Cro-magnon man disappeared in the geological record shortly after it’s discovery.  It is believed that they merged with Neanderthal man.[92] [93]  Likely, the races of Neanderthal, Cro-magnon and Sapiens mingled and merged into a more homogenous form.

            With a fully-upright posture, a brain not only with the size of brains today,[94] but on the upper end of the scale, and the intelligence to use tools, there is no logical reason to assume Cro-magnon man was anything other than a human like today.  The difference the evolutionists would use to justify their arguments, are based on minute details to the skull.  These differences are no different from the various races of man today.  Cro-magnon man was a man and no different from modern Homo sapiens.

 

[95]

The fossil evidence known as ‘Millennium Man’

 

            The latest development in the search for hominid fossils was the discovery of bones and other fragments in Kenya in the later part of 2001.  The bones, consisted of a piece of jaw with some teeth, a fingertip, an arm, and a sturdy leg bone[96] from an estimated 5 individuals could possibly alter all evolutionary models to date[97].  Why would there be the possibility of such a drastic change considering the fossil evidence at hand?  Simply put, the theory must be followed.  As with all other finds in the past, the theory is assumed first, then evidence is found to prove the theory.  Nothing has changed.  Scientist today fail to follow scientific procedures by putting the theory before the evidence.  As far as this particular find is concerned, the jury is still out.  Until the current study is concluded to determine what these bone are, it’s anyone’s guess.

            This brings us to modern man, Homo sapien sapien.  As we’ve already discussed, men of today have a wide range of features which are all interpreted as modern.  With a brain size of 900 – 1,600 cubic centimeters,[98] we possess many intellectual abilities that are not necessarily based on brain size alone.  The Aborigine tribes in Australia and the Pigmy tribes in Africa both possess small (by comparison to the average 1,350 cubic centimeters)  brain sizes, yet they are both fully functioning people.  Neither is, or should be, called a evolutionary species.

            In the same way, the various races of the world differ drastically in physical characteristics.  Asians usually have smaller frames.  Northern Europeans are known for fair hair and blue eyes.  Africans are known for course hair and dark skin.  The skull shapes, sizes and proportions vary between these different groups of people, yet we know they are all men just the same. 

            The arguments of the evolutionists are flawed at best.  They use brain size and dental imprints to determine if something is in-between man and ape.  Numerous assumptions have been made on the flimsiest of evidence, only to be proved wrong by newer fossil evidence.  The unwarranted assumptions have led to the discovery of Ocre man as a dolphin and Nebraska man as a pig.[99]  Even more-so are the frauds of Piltdown man and the un-known location of the Peking man remains.  This is not scientific research, but the search for ways to prop-up the established belief system.  Evolution is not an unbiased science, but a religion with all the bias built in.

 

Theistic evolution

            Some Christians have blended the theory of evolution with the book of Genesis and developed a new theological doctrinal view on the origin of man.  In this view, God used evolution as the means to create man from lesser beings.  The order of events in Genesis 1 is seen by some to follow the evolutionary theory.  The creation of the water-borne creatures followed by land creatures follows the sequence Darwin envisioned.  In this way, it is assumed that God created the process of evolution.  But, evolution was responsible for creating us.

 

"basic ally, theistic evolution contends that abiogenesis (the spontaneous formation of life from chemicals) and evolution (amoeba to many through eons) have occurred, but a creator was instrumental in forming the initial matter and laws, and more or less guided the whole process" [100]

           

            The argument for theistic evolution centers on the creation story as described in Genesis 1:2-31.  This account of creation, describes what happened in each of the six days leading up to man.  In each day, a morning and an evening is said to occur.  However, the theologians of this study interpret the word day[101] to mean a period of time.  Using this interpretation, the phrase “And there was evening, and there was morning”[102] is also interpreted to define an extended period of time rather than a specific day or 24-hour period of time.  Some see these days to be thousands or even millions of years in length.

            God is seen as the creator of the material of the universe and the rules that guide it (i.e. physics, evolution, etc.).  In this view, God is neither necessary to control the events nor concerned about the outcome.  He just allows things to happen as His rules have set in motion; God is not concerned about the outcome as He has already completed His work.

            But, is this a true match with what the Bible teaches us?  Does scripture agree with this doctrine?  On both accounts, the answer is a resounding no.

            First, we need to look at the intent of the creator.  What did God intend to do?  Scripture does shed some light on this.  Isaiah says in chapter 45:

 

“For this is what the LORD says-he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:18 (NIV)[103]

 

            This simple phrase from the Old Testament shows that God had a purpose from the very beginning.  He did not allow the world to create itself then determine what to do with it.  Instead, He created a home to be inhabited.  But, does God’s purpose show a link with the creation of the separate species?

            God uses two of the six days of creation to breath life into the world.  On the fifth day, fish and birds are created.[104]  On the sixth day of creation God created the creatures that crawl on the land, beasts, and man.[105]  Man is destined to rule over all the earth and all creatures in it.  There is no hint of man being equal with the animals.  He is in the image of God and always held above it.  Even after creation, God did not stop and let this world go on it’s own path.  Instead, he maintained contact with Adam, noticed the loneliness he felt, and created Eve.[106]  He gave them rules to live by which, unfortunately, led to the first sin.  God didn’t give up on man, but instead instituted the promise of a coming messiah.[107]  His love carried forward in providing His one and only Son to die for us. This is hardly the uninvolved creator of theistic evolution.

 

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16 (NIV)[108]

 

“This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.  This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” 1 John 4:9-10 (NIV)[109]

 

 

            Not only is God’s concern and care for us an indicator that theistic evolution is off-track, but even the method and mechanism of creation is mentioned in the Bible and it’s hardly evolution.  Genesis chapter 1 describes the creation of the fish, birds and other animals as being “according to their kind.”[110]   The order does not meet the theory of evolution as well as some would suggest; the birds[111] come before the creatures that crawl along the ground.[112]  Evolution would have us believe that reptiles mutated into birds.  Genesis does not match that theory.  Each creature is designed by God to produce it’s own kind.  There is no hidden agenda here.  God created all life complete, fully formed and without chaos from the very beginning.

            In the same way, man was created in the likeness of God from the very dust of the ground.

 

“the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7 (NIV)[113]

 

 There is no room to add additional species here nor is there a mention of changing an animal into man.  God formed man fully and complete.  The original Hebrew word used for formed is yatsar[114] which is used elsewhere to talk of fashioning pottery.  Even when the culture differences between ancient Israel and modern science are considered, the word yatsar can not be stretched to mean man was evolved from an ape. This is not the mutation of an animal, but the explicit, planned creation of a special creature.  Man, the only one created in the image of God[115] and therefore a special creation. 

The entire idea of theistic evolution does an injustice to God.  It puts God in the place of bystander instead of all-powerful controller.  Under this theory, God set the rules of nature in motion, then allowed them to progress in whatever direction they chose.  Theistic evolution views God as uninvolved and unconcerned. 

            This doctrine satisfies neither the scientific community for the theological community.  From the viewpoint of the evolutionist scientist, the theory falls flat because it does not allow for the spontaneous generation of life.  Instead, a creator is needed to give the basic building blocks of life and set the rules to assemble these blocks into living creatures.  From the viewpoint of the theologian, theistic evolution places too much emphasis on nature setting it’s own destiny with God being unconcerned with life’s development.  In both cases, no one is satisfied.  The doctrine of theistic evolution doesn’t work.

 

Conclusion

The fossil evidence has not shown a series of hops from ape to man.  Instead, the evidence has shown that man was formed fully, will all his faculties, from the very beginning of his existence.  scientific procedures normally would allow every possibility where only the impossible positions would be abolished.  Instead, evolution has ruled out the idea of a creator without so much as reason.  The secular views of the evolutionist community have eliminated the possibility for God in their world.  This is nothing more than an atheistic inspired religion.

The theistic evolution stance doesn’t fair much better as it satisfies neither evolutionists nor creationists.  Instead, it creates a fuzzy in-between status that has more difficulties than even the theory of evolution itself. 

The only solution that still fits the scientific evidence and allows for scientists to interpret the data, is God as the creator of life.  He created all life in the beginning, complete will all the attributes and abilities of each species.  There is no contradiction in the fossil evidence as there are no transitional forms.  God created man and beast, and He did it without the assistance of Darwin or his theory of evolution.

 

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3^rd ed. Chicago : Moody, 1994.

Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1982.

Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated. Grand Rapids : Baker, 1986.

Carmichael, Andy. Creation School on-line. Available on-line http://www.sloppynoodle.com/cso5.html. 2002

Crossway Bibles. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton : Good News, 2001.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London : Elec Book, 1997.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament: Volume One. Trans. J. A. Baker. Philadelphia : Westminster , 1961.

Encyclopedia Britanica. Evolution, Human. Encyclopedia Britanica, Macropedia, volume18. Chicago : Britanica. 1993.

England, Donald. A Christian View of Origins. Grand Rapids : Baker, 1972.

Finegan, Jack. Light from the Ancient Past: The Archeological Background of Judaism and Christianity.  Princeton : Princeton , 1974.

Foley, Jim. Prominent Hominid Fossils. Available on-line http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#oh7. 2002

Gish, Duane T. Evolution the Fossils Say No. San Diego : Creation-Life Publishers. 1973.

Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1972.

Harris, R. Laird. Man-God’s Eternal Creation: Old Testament Teaching on Man and His Culture. Chicago : Moody, 1971.

Hoerber, Robert G., Hummel, Horace D., Roehrs, Walter R., and Wenthe, Dean O. ed., Concordia Self-Study Bible: New International Version. Saint Louis : Concordia, 1984.

Jackson, Wayne . Christian Courier. Available on-line. http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/bonePushers.htm. Courier Productions. 2002.

Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial. Washington D.C. :Regnery Gateway, 1991.

Kofahl, Robert E. Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter.  Available on-line http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy, 2002.

Kofahl, Robert E., Man From Apes: Has Science Proved It Yet?  Available on-line http://www.parentcomany.com/creation_essays/essay42.htm, 2002.

Kofahl, Robert E., The Scientific Case for Evolution Has Never Been Proved! So Why Do the Public schools Teach It As If It Were a Fact?  Available on-line http://www.parentcomany.com/creation_essays/essay45.htm, 2002.

Kofahl, Robert E., What Do Fossils Prove? Or, Are Dem Bones Connected?  Available on-line http://www.parentcomany.com/creation_essays/essay7.htm, 2002.

Kreger, David. Modern Human Origins. Available on-line  http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/laetolifoot.html. 2002

Leaky, Richard. Anthropology. Available on-line http://www.why-the-bible.com/anthropology.htm. 2002

Leaky, Richard. The Scientific evidence for the Origin of Man. Available on-line http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/apeimage.htm. 2002.

Levitt, Zola. Creation: A Scientist’s Choice. Wheaton : Victor, 1971.

Menton, David N. The Scientific evidence for the Origin of Man. St. Louis : Missouri Association for Creation. Available on-line http://mall.turnpike.net/C/cs/apeimage.htm. 2002.

Morris, John D.  Who Made the Laotolian Footprints?  Available on-line http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-098b.htm. 2002

Ogwyn, John H. Can the Bible Survive the Scrutiny of Modern Science? Florence : Creation Science Ministries, 2002.

Rusch. Human Fossils, in Ro c k Strata and the Bible Record. St. Louis : Concordia.

Smithsonian Institute. Hall of Human Ancestors. Available on-line  http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html. 2002

Strong, James. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville : Nelson, 1996.

University of Ediacara . Prominent Hominid Fossils. Available on-line http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#robustus. 2002

Wood, Leon J. A Survey of Israel’s History. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 1986.

Wysong R. L. The Creation-Evolution Controversy. East Lansing , Inquiry Press, 1976.

Zimmerman, Paul A., ed. Rock Strata and the Bible Record. Saint Louis : Concordia. 1970.

For a copy of this document in Microsoft Word format, click here.