Skip to content

Commentary On Creation Science: Genesis And Why It Matters, Mr. Piltdown.

November 14, 2018

cropped-12301412301.jpg“In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.”  (Genesis 1:1).

What is faith? What is science?  Are the two really not compatible? I have never found my faith and my understanding of science to be in any conflict. I have always enjoyed science long before I became a Christian, but I still never quit bought evolution as the answer to all that there was. To my thinking the universe and all that there was within its boundaries just seems too complex,  too simple to have simply have come into being by chance of random processes of unknown origins. Science is suppose to be about observable events and using the tools of science come to the conclusion that best fits  what is being observed. That is observational science at it’s foundation. The profound thought and philosophy of Genesis isn’t the act of creation, but that God existed and then bothered to create anything. Think about it this this way, a second before creation began God had already existed for eternity past. There was a moment before time became an actual event God was already there in eternity. There was a moment in ‘history’ when all that was was God and God alone. God existed from forever back from the moment of Genesis 1:1. Creation is an after-thought after the idea that God alone ever existed and then all the universe came into being within the six-days of creation week. As recorded in Exodus thirty-one seventeen, “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.” (Exodus 31:17). When did modern science feel that consensus of opinion was the history and methods of science? How and why did modern science allow the Piltdown Man? What happened to the scientific method of discovery, research, and to question? What happened to the simple idea that science makes mistakes and sometimes it’s very obvious they make them but will take a while to admit to it. Science is suppose to be about the battle in the arena of ideas, not wishful thinking which created the environment that gave science the hoax called the Piltdown Man. Let’s deal with the history of the great ape hoax of 1912.

The meeting of the Geological Society of London on that December 18, 1912 was suppose to mean a great deal to the proponents of evolution that an ancestor had been discovered. Charles Dawson, (1864-1916), British amateur archaeologist, claimed that workmen at the Piltdown gravel pit had given him a fragment of the skull some four years ago. As the story goes as told by Dawson, the workmen at the site found the skull before his visit and broke it up in their belief it was nothing more than a fossilized coconut. Returning to the original site, Dawson claimed he discovered more fragments of the skull and then took them to Arthur Smith Woodward, (1864-1944), British Paleontologist and expert of fossil fish, who was the Keeper of Geology at the British Natural History Museum. Highly interested in what the find could mean for evolutionary thought and opinion both Dawson and Woodward returned to the original site of the discovery. Between June and September of 1912 they worked together; though Dawson working alone and found more fragments of the skull and half of the lower jaw. The skull pieces were the only finds of the Piltdown Man discovered in the area; difficult to discover something not there or made up in this case. Science is suppose to be about evidence and facts not wishful thinking and creating evidence.

At another meeting, Woodward went ahead and made it known that a reconstruction of the bits and pieces of the fragments of the skull found showed that the skull was in many ways very familiar to that of a human skull of modern humans. Well, except for the part of the skull that sits on the spinal column, scientifically called the occiput. Also not very human was the brain size which was about two-thirds size of a human skull. Woodward also went on to state that despite the fact that the jaw bone looked very much like a young chimpanzee he still believed this was an actual prehistoric human ape ancestor. From the British Museum’s efforts of reconstruction of the found skull fragments, he proposed that this fossil found was of a human ancestor and was more proof of the evolutionary tree of human’s from some primate ancestor to modern man. So because the cranium was human-like and the ape-like jaw together tended to support the notion and belief that evolution was a fact therefore it must be a human-ape evolutionary ancestor despite the fact they didn’t exactly look as if they were of the same creature; and one wonders why people question human evolutionary thought. No proof they were really found together, no real connection between the two fossil pieces but because they wanted it to be a ape-human connection they forced the evidence to be what they wanted. Is that science or wishful thinking? The problem with evolution is that it wants so badly to be true it’s created evidence to show that it’s true even when it’s obviously a fraud.

The challenge to the fossil evidence and statements made by Woodward didn’t take long. His reconstruction was challenged by fellow researchers who saw the problem. Even the Royal College of Surgeons had issues with the evidence brought before the scientific community by Woodward. Copies of the fragments used by the British Museum in their own attempt to reconstruct their ape-man ancestor were also used and the Royal College of Surgeons came to a different conclusion let alone a different model. Their creature had a different brain size and their reconstruction had other different features that resembled a modern man more than some ancient ape ancestor for that evolutionary tree so needed for human evolution to be a fact. This construction of the fossil evidence was conducted by Professor Arthur Keith, (1866-1955), who was a Scottish anatomist and anthropologist; he even was a supporter of scientific racism. As for Keith himself, he was a strong supporter of the Piltdown Man fossil evidence. In a book by Frank Spencer, Australian science historian in his book, ‘Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery,’ explored the link between Professor Keith and Charles Dawson. He also explored the suggestion that it was Keith, not Dawson, who created the specimen for Dawson to plant and then announce to the scientific community a discovery of a new proof of human evolution. Even French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard dr Chardin, (1881-1955), who was a paleontologist and geologist from the Paris paleontology laboratory of the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle and studied mammals of the Tertiary Period, joined forces with Woodward, Dawson in the belief in the find of the Piltdown Man.

The problems for the newly discovered ancestor continued. Woodward’s reconstruction also had included ape-like canine teeth; which of course caused even more controversy for the whole evolutionary tree lacking key things like some actual ancestors that could stand up to scientific scrutiny. In August of 1913, the three all-in proponents of the Piltdown Man, Dawson, Woodward, and Teilhard de Chardin, started again in a search for more fossil evidence and to be more specific to look for more of the mysterious canine teeth. Naturally Teilhard de Chardin was able to find a canine that actually fit the jaw perfectly so reported Woodward. One would think that this was a great find and meant that this indeed was proof that Piltdown was a real ancestor. Just when it seemed that evidence had been found, a few days later after this discovery Teilhard de Chardin returned to France and had no further part in the promotion of the new discovery. Why would he leave so suddenly if what was discovered was so much a proof positive that indeed an actual human ancestor was found; Teilhard was a strong proponent of evolution. Woodward even though that this new discovery would once and for all put an end to the doubts about Piltdown Man. Everything about the tooth was what they wanted, a tooth that corresponded with that of an ape! However, Professor Keith pointed out that human molars are the result of side by side chewing. The canine in the Piltdown Man jaw was impossible as it didn’t allow side by side movement for chewing.

Piltdown Man had issues and those who simply saw the problems of the find and the problems of the forcing of evidence to fit what some people wanted it to be. As early as 1913, David Waterston of King’s College London wrote and published in the scientific journal Nature that his own conclusions upon viewing the evidence that the fragments consisted of an primate mandible and parts of a human skull. In 1915 French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, (1861-1942), pretty much said the same thing that Waterston stated in the journal Nature. American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller, (1869-1956), came to the conclusion that the fossil jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Wiedenreich, (1873-1948),  also examined the fossil evidence and pretty much and correctly reported that the fragments belonged to a modern man’s skull and the jaw was part of an orangutan with the teeth filed down.

The point of fact is that it happened because they wanted there to be an ape man and were so needful of some kind of evidence that one was created. That is not science, that’s science at it’s worst. The tools of science should be neutral and void of the human condition called ignoring the obvious because science wants an ape-man despite the lack of evidence; wishful thinking I know. The tools of science need to be used to show the evidence of the handiwork of God in creation and support the entire history of Genesis. The Book of Genesis is the story of beginnings and the beginning of the story of human salvation. It’s the story of the One and Only God of creation creating as He thought fit to create in the order He wished to make it clear it simply just didn’t happen as evolutionists would like to believe. The story of creation is the story of an eternal God simply speaking into existence the universe and that came after into being in six days because that is what He said He did, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the seas, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20:11). God doesn’t mention any of length of time but in days so why it is so hard to except that God, an Eternal God of who has always been, could and can create in any amount of time He chooses? He chose to create in six literal days despite the human pride of self-righteousness that they know better than God. God doesn’t need your science to tell Him He did as He was there and the evolutionists were not. Genesis chapter one is God and God alone creating the universe and setting into motion the story of humanity in the creation of Adam and Eve. It’s a grand over-view of God’s imagination and power. The first chapter of Genesis is not up to debate if you really believe in the God of the Bible and you believe that He raised Jesus Christ from the dead. You can’t have one without the other as a belief because they are connected in the human story of the fall and final redemption of the human race. God created and God alone set into motion creation without the need of evolution. If God is who He claims He was then He would have no use for such a cruel and horrible way to promote and create life. Evolution is bringing death into the world for the sake of creating life? Why would a God of creation of such imagination want to proclaim His glory by creating such a horrible way to bring forth life? Creation is an act of love and evolution is an act of cruelty.

Genesis chapters one to three is the story of creation, man, and the fall of humanity. It’s the point of why Jesus Christ was crucified for the sins of the world. Either the story of Adam and Eve are true or then Jesus was sacrificed for no particular reason other than He annoyed the religious leaders of Jerusalem and the Roman political authorities. The fall of humanity into sin is the story of Genesis. How does one explain the life and ministry of Christ without the belief in the literal story of what happened in that Garden of Eden with Eve and the Serpent is a mystery. The story of God creating man from the dust of the earth is either a true event or a creation of the human imagination. It’s that simple. God either created humanity or He had nothing to do with it and doesn’t exist. Genesis is the story of God and His creation interacting before and after the fall into sin and rebellion. It’s the story of a loving creator reaching down and saving His creation. The Post-Modern view is that humanity id nothing but an evolutionary by-product of chance and survivor of the fittest evolutionary thinking. We are just animals and have nothing but animal instincts that have changed and grown over the millions of years of human evolution. God simply says no and declares that He created you above the animal because you were created apart from the animals. He created Adam with a soul; Adam was a special creation and for a special destiny. The world-view of Post-Modern thinking is that we are nothing but animals and we have no creator to worry about. We live and die; no heaven or hell to worry about. The Post-Modern view has declared humanity no more value than anything else whereas God has declared humanity His crowning creation because it can worship, love, and serve it’s Creator. Genesis chapter one to eleven is the foundation of the rest of the story of humanity leading to God choosing a particular people to be His chosen people in Abraham of Ur. (Why did God chose Abraham? God answers that question why He decided to work through a particular people, “The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any other people; for ye were the fewest of all people.” (Deuteronomy 7:7).)

Genesis is important to anyone interested in the fact that there is a God and the universe is not a random event that just by enough acts of chance created everything. The value in Genesis is the story of an act of love in the act of creation. God didn’t need anything to make His being anymore complete than Himself. Genesis is the story of God reaching down and walking with Adam and Eve in the garden because He chose to do so, He chose to fellowship with His creation that could worship Him, serve Him, and love Him back as their creator. God walked and spoke with His creation in the lives of Enoch, Genesis 5:8-24,  and Noah, Genesis 6:8-10:29,  and into the life of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Joseph, Genesis 12-50:26, and it left it’s mark upon their lives and in Scripture and the history of the Jewish people. The story of Genesis is the story of the fall of humanity into the abyss of sin and rebellion against it’s creator and the promise of salvation through the coming of Jesus Christ to save that which was lost to sin. To state that the story of the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-historical let alone that important is to undermine the story of the cross and the reason for the death and resurrection of Christ. Without the story of Genesis being taught as true then what is the point of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ let alone His death? Without the value and understanding of Genesis what is the reason for Him even coming and who or what was He saving humanity from if the story of Adam and Eve are taught as fables or simply Bible stories with a moral? Sin came into the world duo to their falling into sin and to teach anything otherwise or to disregard Genesis is to undermine the whole story of the Bible leading to the redemption of the human race. The point being, if Genesis isn’t true or taught as truth then what or why should anyone bother with believing anything else in Scripture. One might as well follow the tenants of the Post-Modern philosophy of the age. Death before Adam makes God a liar and to teach that Genesis is just a fable is to make evolution one’s real god and that particular god cannot save you from anything. Either the Book of Genesis is to be taught as a whole truth of Scripture or it should be tossed out as just another form of ancient mythology. If you can’t stand on Genesis as truth  then the rest that follows cannot be taken as God’s truth because if you can’t stand on Genesis 1:1 then everything to Revelations 22:21 shouldn’t be trusted and is a lie at it’s heart.

REFERENCES/RECOMMENDATIONS

The Bible (KJV).

The Genesis Record. By. Henry Morris.

The Genesis Flood. By. Henry Morris.

Science And The Bible. By. Henry Morris.

The Young Earth. By. Henry Morris.

Men Of Science, Men Of God. By. Henry Morris.

Genesis: Decay Of Nations. By. Ken Ham.

One Blood. By. Ken Ham.

National Geographic Magazine, June, 1988.

The Living Fossil: The Story of the Coelacanth. By. Keith S. Thomson.

Fish Caught In Time. By. Samantha Weinberg.

Origin. By. Irving Stone. (Historical Novel, Darwin).

Origin Of The Species. By. Charles Darwin.

Descent Of Man. By. Charles Darwin.

Heretic In Darwin’s Court: The Life Of Alfred R. Wallace. By. Ross Slotten.

My Life: A Record Of Events and Opinions. By. Alfred R. Wallace.

The Gilded Dinosaur. By. Mark Jaffe.

The Hot-Blooded Dinosaur. By. Adrian Desmond.

Darwin. By. Adrian Desmond.

Huxley. By. Adrian Desmond.

Collapse Of Evolution. By. Scott Huse.

Darwin On Trial. By. Philip E. Johnson.

The Creationists And The Evolution Of Creation Science.

The Pilt-Down Man. By. Ronald Miller.

The Neandertals: Of Skeletons, Scientists, And Scandal. By., Erik Trinkus, Pat Shipman.

Faraday, Maxwell, And Kelvin. By. D. K. C. MacDonald.

The Electric Life Of Michael Faraday. By. Alan Hirshfield.

Monk In The Garden; Life Of Gregor Mendel. By. Robin M. Henig.

Spirit Of Fire: The Life And Vision Of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. By. Ursula King.

 

 

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: