geocreationism.com

I am about to do something risky.  I am about to evaluate the scientific evidence presented by Glenn Morton for the likelihood of Adam, Noah, and the flood being 5.5 million years ago.  The reason this is risky is because I do not have the scientific background to judge the validity of Morton’s evidence.  Of course, that hasn’t stopped me from evaluating other scientific positions, so why let it stop me here?

In my readings, I have now seen several critiques of his theory.  In my opinion, these critiques fall into two major camps.  Camp #1 is scientifically knowledgeable; often exceptionally knowledgeable.  They do not necessarily refute or misunderstand the existence of Morton’s evidence, but they do not think it proves his theory.  Camp #2 is scientifically-minded, and often have advanced degrees in various technical fields, which allows them to follow scientific reasoning in fields other than their own.  I include myself in this group.  As someone with a Masters Degree in Computer Science, my ability to research has allowed me to read papers on zircon crystals and DNA.  I can even sound impressive when I discuss these with a less knowledgeable lay person, though I may sound foolish to those who are expert in the area.  Of course, there are people who straddle the fence between the two camps, and I do not mean to imply otherwise.

The interesting thing about both camps is that regardless of where a person falls in the spectrum, Morton’s critics do not truly appreciate the reasoning behind his arguments, in my opinion.  The reason is because both have a perspective that will not let them consider the possibility that a neanderthal could be human, or that a homo erectus could be human, or that a homo habilis could be human.  To them, homo sapiens are so obviously the only humans to have existed on this world, that any conclusion to the contrary is either foolishness or wishful thinking.  What surprises me is that each camp – rather than giving alternative explanations for Morton’s evidence that humanity predates homo sapiens – would prefer to dismiss his evidence altogether.

For example, let us consider this quote by Hugh Ross, who believes religion began 24,000 years ago (emphasis mine):

“Worship is the key evidence of the spiritual quality of the human race, and the universality of worship is evidenced in altars, temples, and religious relics of all kinds.” (Ross H., “Creation and Time” 1994, p140)

In that vein, Morton presents evidence (w/references) of altars going back 400,000 years, long before the appearance of homo sapiens:

And Bilzingsleben dates to around 400,000 years, not the mere 24,000 years that Ross prefers for the oldest evidence of religion. If Ross wishes to claim that religion doesn’t go back further than 24,000 years, he should explain why the above five examples don’t qualify as examples of religion? It is clear that evidence of religion in the anthropological record prior to 24,000 years is not rare.

Now, there may be a response to Morton’s evidence somewhere on the Internet, but I haven’t found it.  However, Stephen Jones comes close:

What I was pointing out is that Glenn can’t quote verses from Homo sapiens to other Homo sapiens on how we are to treat other Homo sapiens. Verse about not judging by outward appearance obviously must be interpreted withing the category Homo sapiens. But clearly at one level “humanity” does “rest in the shape of our bones.” Palaeontologists define taxonomic categories based on “the shape of…bones.” Some hominids (eg. Australopithecines) are ruled out of the genus Homo (the lowest level definition of humanity) based on the “shape of” their “bones.” But as I have said many times before, *full* humanity rests in our capacity to have a relationship with God.

As this reads to me, Jones is arguing that based on the accepted definition of what makes someone fully human, Morton must be wrong.  Well, if the accepted definition of “fully human” (i.e., homo sapiens) is correct, then of course Jones is right.  However, Morton’s whole point is that Hugh Ross’s own definition of full humanity should call us to pause in light of evidence that altars were built and used before homo sapiens ever existed.  Consider this short interchange, again between Morton and Jones:

SJ: Glenn cites *no* references supporting his claim that it is a “clear definition” of “Christianity” that “Those who engage in religion must be human.” By contrast, I have cited references from Christian theologians and apologists that the Christian definition of “human” is the capacity to have a personal relationship with God:

GM: I accept your definition and by that definition anyone engaging in religious activities would be human. This would include the building of altars.

Lest it appear like I am picking on Jones, I believe that Morton did not address Jones’ point here, which appears to be that while building an altar may be evidence of an attempt at relating to some god (small g), if that altar is not built to the one true God, then there isn’t a personal relationship with the one true God.  Lack of such a relationship could imply a lack of capacity for such a relationship, worship of false gods notwithstanding.  Therefore, the existence of altars is not proof of such a relationship either, and so can therefore be dismissed.  And there you have it.  Jones does not explain the altars; he dismisses them.  But then, I suppose Morton dismissed him right back.  (And so it went between them those many years ago.)

To address Jones’ argument for myself, I believe ”capacity” for something indicates potential, though not necessarily fulfillment of that potential.  Therefore, lack of fulfilled potential is no argument against capacity, which is why Jones response falls short in my opinion.  In light of that, Morton’s response, though dismissive, would also appear to be correct, because if someone can worship any god, then it would seem to me that He can worship another; in particular, he could worship the one true God.

Though Jones comes the closest, I have not found in my readings anyone arguing convincingly why the discovery of altars is not enough to prove full humanity.   I must seriously consider then that the reason is because evidence of altars is, in fact, enough.

This entry was posted on Friday, December 28th, 2007 at 1:31 am and is filed under The Science, Creationism, Evolution, Creation Theories, The Flood. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.