Early Hominid Ancestors
Brian from Laelaps writes:
I would be very interested in hearing your interpretation of the hominid fossil record (i.e. Homo sapiens down through Proconsul). I know you’re busy and have quite a bit to work on with your book and all (and also I know you recently said that you’d rather focus on the salvation message rather than on geology/evolution/human origins), but I would be interested just to see how you interpret the fossil evidence for our ancient ancestry.
Well, you’re right: I don’t have the time to treat this issue with the respect that it deserves. It is a very interesting question and I will certainly explore it further. Right now, I only have very superficial information with which to work, and therefore my early conclusion will probably make you wince in the agony of my ignorance.
The question is written from an evolutionary point of view. This means that it assumes that I would interpret these fossils as ancestral to a modern human, because the question further assumes that evolution is a foregone conclusion. I don’t believe that it is. In other words, I believe what the Bible teaches: each animal reproduces after its own kind (Gen 1:24-25), and men and women were made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27).
I don’t deny the existence of these fossils. I deny the modern scientific interpretation of these fossils. I don’t believe that they are our ancestors. Perhaps they represent an extinct species of monkey, or perhaps they are simply modern humans. To the latter case, it is my understanding that our hominid “ancestors” are each only known from single, incomplete skeletons. That means that we are essentially guessing that this skeleton represents one of an entire race; it may only be an individual with an unusual deformity.
I’ve either made all kinds of sense or just stuck my foot into my mouth and swallowed. I’m hoping the first, but I give you permission to flame the living heck out of me if the latter is true.
Cory, I will not “flame the living heck” out of you, but much of what you wrote is incorrect. I’ll write a summation up. What you wrote here is consistent with what I’m seen from AiG and other groups (that there are apes and humans [even degenerate ones] but nothing else). While my evolutionary stance is clear, what I was asking was “What’s your interpretation of these fossils?” If they don’t show evolution, then how do you, as a creationist, make sense of them? As would be expected, your argument goes through a Biblical filter first (if it contradicts a historical interpretation of certain passages, then it is automatically wrong), but I was just curious how you made sense of the hominid and ape fossils we do have.
I might even put off my response another week or so because I’ll be headed back to AMNH so I’ll be able to photograph some of the actual fossils and artifacts that will help explain, but if you can’t wait Talk Origins has a pretty good rundown of hominid species and important fossils here.
Thank you for taking the time to address my question, and hopefully I’ll have something up very soon (I need to finish my precocial/altricial research first).
Cory,
You wrote: “I believe what the Bible teaches: each animal reproduces after its own kind (Gen 1:24-25), and men and women were made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27).”
Just so you know, I believe these, too. However, just as you accept the fossil but not modern science’s interpretation, I accept the scripture, but not the standard creationist’s interpretation.
My question is thes: if it turns out that science is correct, then how could the scripture be correct? Well, each animal does reproduce after its kind, and so scripture is clearly correct. However, scripture is silent on whether all animals reproduce after their kind, and whether animals are capable of producing something **not** after their kind. It turns out both points are observable today. Consider this: if a female horse and a male donkey mate, you get a mule, which is neither. So there is one modern case where animals can produce something that is not after their kind. Consquently, “after their kind” is not a statement against evolution.
Also note that the resulting mule cannot reproduce after its kind, meaning not all of God’s creation is capable of doing so, meaning “after their kind” is not absolutely true in all cases. This illustrates that scripture should not be interpreted to say more than it says. God commanded that animals reproduce after their kind, and generally speaking, they do. Simple. If evolution was used to produce these animals, it doesn’t contradict “after their kind”. After all, horses and donkeys produce mules.
As for men and women being in the image of God, will we remain so when we die? If so, then it illustrates what makes us in God’s image… our soul, and the word for breathe can easily mean the breathing of a soul into Adam… meaning that being in God’s image is not an argument against evolution. Evolution could have been used to create our form… but the early hominid wasn’t in God’s image until God breathed **real** life (i.e., a soul) into Adam. And from then, it spread through Adam’s line.
I know you might view these arguments as compromising scripture, but I believe I am holding the scriptures to precisely what they say.