Creationist Arguments: Overview
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/homs/a_overview.html
When one reads creationist literature about the human fossil record, there
is a definite pattern in the fossils that are selected for discussion.

Huse (1983), in a summary of "some of the more significant so-called fossil
ape-men", discusses the insignificant Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, the
Neandertals, and the original Java Man fossil, ignoring all other H. erectus
fossils, H. habilis, and A. africanus.

Taylor (1992), ("Each of the most famous 'missing links' is discussed")
devotes only two sentences to H. habilis, mentioning no fossils by name and
dismissing it as an ape. Taylor also makes misleading use of the past tense
to imply that even evolutionists no longer accept habilis as a transitional
form - an implication which is totally incorrect. Of H. erectus, only Peking
Man and the original Java Man fossil are mentioned in the main text.

Parker (Morris and Parker, 1982) claims that "all the candidates once
proposed as our evolutionary ancestors have been knocked off the list", and
then proceeds to give the list, which is inexplicably lacking H. erectus (it
is lumped in with Java Man) and H. habilis, and the gracile
australopithecines. (Parker then contradicts himself by admitting that the
gracile australopithecines are still possible candidates.)

Gish (1985) discusses Java Man, Peking Man and ER 1470, but almost totally
omits mention of all other H. habilis and H. erectus fossils.

Bowden (1981) discusses Piltdown Man, Java Man and Peking Man extensively.
Unlike most creationists he is at least aware of other Homo erectus fossils
and the Homo habilis fossils from Olduvai Gorge, but they receive only a
brief mention.

Lubenow (1992) alone appears to be aware of all the fossil material, and
comes closest to addressing the evidence, but he fails to discuss some of
the more compelling intermediate fossils such as OH 7, OH 24 and ER 1813
(because his book is about the human fossil record, and he considers most
habilis specimens to be apes). Lubenow is virtually the only creationist to
avoid the absurdity of claiming that the Java Man and Peking Man fossils are
apes.

Creationists appear to avoid discussion of the fossils that are the best
evidence for human evolution. These include superb fossils such as OH 9, ER
3733 and Sangiran 17 (human but with primitive features), Sts 5 (apelike,
but with some modern features) and OH 7, OH 13, OH 24, and ER 1813 (so
perfectly transitional that they are difficult to classify).

In contrast to the above omissions, it is almost impossible to find a
creationist work that does not mention Nebraska Man (Lubenow is the one
exception), despite the fact that it was at best weak evidence for human
evolution even during its brief heyday 70 years ago, and Piltdown Man,
despite the fact that the hoax was discovered over 40 years ago.
Ramapithecus, which was often claimed to be a human ancestor in the 1960's
and 70's, also gets mentioned frequently.

Some transitional fossils are often mentioned in creationist literature,
typically Java Man and Peking Man, and sometimes ER 1470. This is probably
because most creationists, knowing little about the fossils and copying
their information from another creationist source, are under the mistaken
impression that these fossils have been shown to be either ape or fully
human. When creationists do perform their own research, they show a
surprising inability to agree on which fossils are apes and which are
humans, exactly what one would expect if evolution had occurred.

Even more surprisingly, creationists do almost no anatomical comparisons,
even of the fossils they do discuss. Typically, they will flatly assert that
a fossil is a human or an ape. Nor do they provide photographs, so that
their readers could judge for themselves whether the fossils are
transitional or not. If, as most of them claim, Java Man is an ape, a
comparative photo of an ape, Java Man and a human would be an easy way to
demonstrate it. If they are confident in their interpretation of the data,
why do they not show the evidence to their readers?

Another feature of creationist literature is its approach to scientific
authority. Creationists appear to make no attempt to weigh evidence; they
often accept uncritically any statement made by a scientist which can be
used to advantage, while ignoring any contrary opinions. Scientists used in
this way include Oxnard, Zuckerman, and Ivanhoe. Their results are often
treated as if they were authoritative, when in reality they are very much
minority opinions in the scientific community.

The creationist approach of allocating all fossils to either apes or humans
is inherently dishonest, because it excludes intermediates by defining them
away. No creationist ever defines what would be acceptable as a valid
transitional fossil, because examples could be found to fit any reasonable
definition. Instead, creationists are forced to take potshots at irrelevant
fossils, misrepresent a few carefully selected examples, and ignore the
strongest evidence for human evolution.

 This page is part of the Fossil Hominids FAQ at the talk.origins Archive.
END***************************************************************************