Re: More Homo erectus religion and other things

Glenn Morton (
Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:16:37 -0600

At 09:00 PM 11/12/97 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>If so, the
>>Christian view of how fossil men fit into a Scriptural framework needs
>>serious revision.
>Why? I'm curious.

There are 2 views of how to fit fossil man into a scriptural framework. The
young-earth christians are all over the place on whether or not erectus is
human. Sometimes it varies by the page of the book.
Gish rejects all of them:

"If australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus existed
contemporaneously, how could one have been ancestral to another?
And how could any of these creatures be ancestral to Man, when
Man's artifacts are found at a lower stratigraphic level, directly
underneath, and thus earlier in time to these supposed ancestors of
Man? If the facts are correct as Leakey has reported them, then
obviously none of these creatures could have been ancestral to Man,
and that leaves Man's ancestral tree absolutely bare."~Duane T.
Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record,(El Cajon:
Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), P. 171

and then apparently accepts some of them,

"At this time, while the evidence in most instances is still
very fragmentary, and published reports in some instances have been
strongly influenced by preconceived ideas, it is our opinion that
some specimens attributed to Homo erectus,such as Java Man and
Peking Man, are definitely from the ape family with no link of any
kind to Man. In other cases (some of which have not been described
here) specimens have been attributed to Homo erectus which
otherwise would have been attributed to Neanderthal Man if the
authorities making this decision had not believed that the fossil
creature was too old to have been Neanderthal Man."~Duane T. Gish,
Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record,(El Cajon: Creation-
Life Publishers, 1985), P. 203-204

Henry Morris accepts erectus as human unless they are called Pithecanthropus
(the old name for Homo erectus then he says that they are apes).

The old-earth creationists generally have argued that the advent of
morphologically modern man marked the creation of Adam. This would mean
that there is no evidence of spirituality prior to 100,000 years or so.
Hugh Ross say that the bible is wrong if there is evidence of spirituality
prior to 60,000 years ago. Where he gets the 60 kyr I don't know.

He writes:
"In the case of the cave drawings and pottery fragments, the
degree of abstractness suggests the expression of something more
than just intelligence. Certainly no animals species other than
human beings has ever exhibited the capacity for such
sophisticated expression. However, the dates for these finds are
well within the biblically acceptable range for the appearance of
Adam and Eve -- somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 years ago
according to Bible scolars who have carefully analyzed the
genealogies. Since the oldest art and fabrics date between
25,000 and 30,000 years ago, no contradiction exists between
anthropology and Scripture on this issue." Hugh Ross, "Art and
Fabric Shed New Light on Human History," Facts & Faith, 9:3
(1995)p. 2

Lots of old-earthers reject erectus. Wiester

"I believe we can dismiss Homo habilis and Homo erectus as
likely candidates for Adam and Eve. For one thing science is not
certain whether they led to Homo sapiens at all. They may have
become extinct. Furthermore, the present fossil evidence does
not indicate they possessed those traits that we consider
uniquely human."~John Wiester, The Genesis Connection,
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), p. 188

Davis and Kenyon:

"It had significant anatomical differences from modern man that
have prevented its classification as Homo sapiens. It also left no
evidence that it buried its dead, no signs of art, or other
recognizably human culture."~Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, Of
Pandas and People, 2nd edition (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co.,
1993), p. 110

What about Bilzingsleben?

Phillip Johnson:

"The most exciting hypothesis in the field right now is the
'mitochondrial Eve' theory based upon the molecular clock
hypothesis discussed in chapter Seven, which asserts that modern
humans emerged from Africa less than 200,000 years ago. If that
hypothesis is accepted, then all Homo erectus fragments found
outside of Africa are necessarily outside the ancestal chain,
because they are older than 200,000 years."~Phillip E. Johnson,
Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downer's Grove: NavPress, 1993), p. 85

>What is your view of "the Christian view of how fossil men fit into the
>Scriptural framework"?

If you have a web browser I would refer you to my web page. (see How Old is
man.." and Theory for Creationists) I believe that Adam and Eve were created
millions of years ago. The spirituality and other capabilities of fossil
man seems to require it. We can either ignore the data or agree that a being
who was more ape like (he had simian shelf inside the jaw, sloping forehead,
browridges, large jaw etc) was a spiritual being. This is an evolutionary


Foundation, Fall and Flood