Creation Science Rebuttals
Answers in Genesis Daily Feature
The Toumai Skull
30 August 2006
Review by Greg Neyman
© 2006, Old Earth Ministries
The Toumai skull has recently received a lot of attention from the
scientific community, and now young earth creationists have taken aim at
this skull. To give you some background, the Toumai skull was found in the
African country of Chad, and is thought to be about seven million years old
(to read more, see
Sahelanthropus
tchadensis). Some have called it a human ancestor, while others urge
caution in its classification.
Young earth creationist Marvin Lubenow wrote an article
for the 30 August 2006 daily feature on the Answers in Genesis website.1 Lubenow is known in young earth circles as an expert on fossil hominids. The
main theme of this article is that the secular scientists cannot decide what Toumai is…is it a hominid, who is an ancestor of modern man…or is it an ape.
Theological Implications
The first thing to consider is the theological implications of a seven
million year old hominid. How would an old earth creationist approach this
issue? If a believer chooses to believe in evolution, and that this fossil
is indeed a seven million year old ancestor, that is perfectly acceptable. One can believe in evolution if one chooses to, and believe in the Bible’s
account of creation. There is no conflict between evolution and the Bible
(the words of Billy Graham sum it
up best). Secondly, the old earth progressive creationist would see this
fossil as evidence of a distinct species of hominids, not evolved from a
previously existing species. Again, the fossil would present no problems for
the believer.
However, for the young earth creationist, they have no choice but to
discredit this fossil as an ape. There is a fine line that they must draw
when considering fossil hominid evidence. Any fossils that have a majority
of ape features are called apes, and dismissed as extinct, with the
extinction occurring during the last 6,000 to 10,000 years. Any fossils with
a majority of human features are called human, and the dating of the fossils
is normally attacked. They must classify this way, not based on the
scientific evidence, but based upon their necessity to dismiss the fossil. It is not an argument based on evidence, but upon need. The scientific facts
are then shaped in such a way as to support their conclusions.
Toumai
Lubenow shows a lack of creativity when it comes to this fossil’s
implications for creation science. As is typical of young earth claims, this
fossil is merely seen as an extinct ape from only thousands of years ago. Lubenow claims that if it was hominid, “it would disqualify many famous
fossils that are not nearly as old and whose discoverers have claimed their
human ancestry.”
This is not the case. There is an easy solution. Toumai
may indeed be considered a hominid, but not an ancestor of modern man. For
the theistic evolutionist, he may be an extinct line of hominids which
branched off from the hominid ancestor at some point greater than seven
million years ago. In this sense, he does not disqualify any of the later
fossil finds. For the progressive creationist, he was a unique creation, and
naturally provides no problems for belief.
Lubenow goes on to say, “if “Toumaï” is a hominid, the
inferred age of “Toumaï” would place the beginning of the human evolutionary
line much earlier than molecular studies have allegedly indicated.” Lubenow
is assuming that Toumai is a part of the human evolutionary line. If he is
an extinct line, then this presents no problems at all...hominid or not.
Finally, Lubenow considers the issue of whether or not
Toumai was bipedal. This issue is still debated, but the issue is not really
important from a creationist perspective. As an early hominid ancestor, it
would not be a problem either way.
Controversies
Lubenow makes light of the fact that there are
controversies such as this within evolutionary circles. I agree, and it is a
wonderful thing. Scientific debate over such issues is a healthy way of the
scientific community policing itself. As ideas are debated, usually a
consensus is reached after several rounds. Young earth creationists love to
point out these disagreements as evidence that secular scientists cannot
agree (implying that you should listen to the young earth side instead).
However, given the complete lack of support for a young earth, that is not a
viable option.
The author points out that the definition of “hominid”
is disputed. That is interesting to know, but has nothing to do with
disproving whether a fossil is a human ancestor or not. Lubenow does bring
up one valid point…the finding of a human ancestor “guarantees celebrity
status for the discoverer.” I agree, and this no doubt has led to some false
claims over the years. However, if you consider the fact that the debates
within the scientific community eventually weed these out, this is really
not an issue.
Lubenow claims that funding is a problem, because it
goes to those who have previously found hominid fossils. When you are
considering grant money, an organization is much more likely to fund someone
with a proven track record than someone who is new. This is merely being a
good steward of money. And while some may falsely claim a fossil is a
hominid in order to obtain funding, the scientific community in the end
will, through scientific debate, determine the correct classification for
the fossil.
Television Show
The Science Channel aired a show called Pre-Human:
Riddle of the Skull, which was about this fossil. I recommend this show to
everyone as a general introduction to this fossil. It may be rebroadcast
periodically on either the Science or Discovery Channels.
Conclusion
There is no reason to assume that the Toumai skull presents any problems for old earth belief. There are simple solutions to the problems presented by Lubenow. His words are merely "young earth spin.
Sources / For More Reading
1 "The Toumai Skull: Ape or Human Ancestor?", published at https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/hominids/the-toumai-skull-ape-or-human-ancestor/
Want to learn more about creation science? Are the claims of young earth creation science ministries truthful? Visit the young earth creation science ministry rebuttal home page for more truth in creation science.
Answers In Genesis 2006 Daily Features
Related Articles
To learn more
about old earth creationism, see
Old Earth Belief,
or check out the article
Can You Be A
Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?
Feel free to check out more of this website. Our goal is to
provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism,
and honor God by properly presenting His creation.