geocreationism.com

I have finally reached the last chapter of Tom DeRosa’s Evidence for Creation.  This good Christian man has continuously shown misunderstandings of science and the scientific method, presented evidence for Creation Science that also supports Evolution, engaged in arguments against Evolution that are only true if one assumes the conclusion, and presented conflicting data as evidence.  This may well become the basis of my final summary for the book.  One more chapter to go however…

Evidence From Man

Evolutionists have a compelling reason to demonstrate an evolutionary link between man and ape.  They know that if they succeed, they will silence the arguments of those who believe in special creation.  Without any question, evolution would triumph if the fossil evidence were to show the final evolutionary phase of an ape becoming man.

To understand DeRosa’s meaning, I suggest replacing the word evolution with derivations of the word atheist:

Atheists have a compelling reason to demonstrate an evolutionary link between man and ape.  They know that if they succeed, they will silence the arguments of those who believe in special creation.  Without any question, atheism would triumph if the fossil evidence were to show the final evolutionary phase of an ape becoming man.

I realize that I am putting words in DeRosa’s mouth, but I think deep down this is his real fear, and is the real fear of many Creation Scientists and other Young Earth Creationists (YECs).

There is something important about thist point though: atheists agree with DeRosa.  I, however, and many other Old Earth Creationists (OECs) do not agree.  We believe that God created through evolution.  Simply, if we established the final link between man and ape, it would mean that we understand yet one more detail of God’s glorious design and creation.  I mean, just imagine… proving that God used apes to create a being that is in His image?  What an incredible discovery that would be!

Time after time, however, when the original find of a supposed fossil link to man is announced, there follows a debate marked by confusion about what was really found.  Historically, for the hopeful evolutionists, it has become a big disappointment…

Of course science is in flux.  It’s the nature of science.  Lack of consensus is not proof of anything.

Missing Link?

“A very common myth today is that many hominid fossils have been discovered.”

“In all the world there are only a few dozen.  But these rare fossils attest to the evolutionary odyssey that created the human species.”

“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table.”

“The primary evidence is a pitifully small array of bones with which to construct man’s evolutionary history.  One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected images.”

The dates for these quotes (according to DeRosa’s footnotes) are 1992, 1984, 1981, and 1981, respectively.  This is hardly evidence for the state of hominid bone discovery.  In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils mentions approximately 118 of the more important hominid fossils.  They are grouped, by age, below.  I will present 2 numbers.  The first is the number of fossils discovered since 1984, the second is the total of important finds overall.  (I go back to 1984, because DeRosa’s 1992 quote doesn’t include a statistic):

> 4 mya: 3/8
3 to 4 mya: 5/10
2 to 3 mya: 1/7
1 to 2 mya: 3/25
100,000 to 1 mya: 5/27
50,000 to 100,000 years ago: 0/16
< 50,000 years ago: 2/25

So, 15% of the fossils were found after DeRosa's 1984 statistic.  Of course, his point would be the same, but consider this: the 100 fossils listed as being discovered in 1984 or earlier are not actually the total of all hominid fossils at the time.  The actual total numbers today in the thousands.  I do not know how many of the thosands were already discovered before 1984, but I will guess that most of them were.  Consequently, the statement that "In all the world there are only a few dozen" would be appear to be false.  DeRosa's willingness to use inaccurate statements and out of date statistics seriously undermines his credibility.

Those in the inner circle who share a belief in evolution are permitted to view the actual fossil, while others are selectively censored… The science of human evolution lacks openness.  Science, by its nature, should be open to the scrutiny of other colleagues.  This is not the case in the field of human evolution.  It fails miserably as science.

Recall above when DeRosa noted the confusion that ensues around new discoveries?  Confusion is DeRosa’s word, but in fact the scientific process frequently starts with confusion.  To hear DeRosa say it, you would think the scientists are sitting around a table helplessly thinking, “What do we do now?  What do we do now?”  when in fact they are theorizing, comparing theories, and testing them.  And it is during that process that the outsider says, “It fails miserably as science.”  If I had to guess, this is probably the very attitude that gets Creation Scientists excluded from the “inner circle” of evolutionary research.  Basically, they’re excluded themselves.

Not True Science

DeRosa then describes two reasons why human evolution is not true science.  The first reason is because there are not enough samples, and the samples they have are not complete enough, often consisting of just pieces.  The other reason is because most scientists are studying cast replicas of the originals. 

Why is it not science to study the small number of fossils we have?  Why is it no science to study and compare partial fossils?  Because, “as more fossil specimens of the same type of species are discovered, fundamental changes are made to the original structure.”  In other words, testing your theory and changing it to accommodate new evidence is not science. 

And why is it not science to work with replicas? Because “real science deals with reality, not castings from actual fossils.”  Right.

I think his real point is that you cannot trust a system that only provides you with access to what insiders decide is appropriate.  Well, the first problem is that DeRosa doesn’t come right out make the charge.  Another problem is that having experts decide what’s important to cast and distribute doesn’t negate the science.  After all, if the casts are of appropriate samples, and they’re accurate, then it is the only way to keep an army of scientists productive.  DeRosa’s reasoning reminds me of the little kid who gets made because the big kids won’t let him use their baseball bat. “Well it’s a stupid bat anyway.”  Maybe.  Or perhaps you don’t know how to play baseball, and they don’t want their “stupid bat” getting broken.

- - -

Next time, I will continue Chapter 5, the section called Hoaxes.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 14th, 2008 at 12:14 am and is filed under Creationism, Evolution, Creation Theories, Book Reviews. 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.