Evidence from Man
Darwin, in his Descent of Man, explained that his objective was to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and higher mammals. According to Darwin, there was a lineal descendant of all the organisms reaching up to man. He emphasized that there were no special creations from God along this lineage, but all were connected through gradual evolutionary change. Man was no exception.
Evolutionists have a compelling reason to demonstrate an evolutionary link between man and ape. They know that if they succeed, they will silence the arguments of those who believe in special creation. Without any question, evolution would triumph if the fossil evidence were to show the final evolutionary phase of an ape becoming man.
When it is announced that an ape-like fossil has been found, the news media lavishes uncritical ink and abundant space to the claims generated by the find. Time after time, however, when the original find of a supposed fossil link to man is announced, there follows a debate marked by confusion about what was really found. Historically, for the hopeful evolutionists, it has become a big disappointment.
The general public is rarely informed of the deep-seated uncertainty about human origins that is reflected in these statements by scientific experts. Instead, we are simply fed the latest version of somebody’s theory, without being told that paleontologists themselves cannot agree over it. And typically, the theory is illustrated with fanciful drawings of cave men, or human actors wearing heavy makeup.1
Ape-man fossils are rare and very expensive. They are often hidden away while castings, not the original bones of these ape-men, are sold and studied. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Science has said, regarding human evolution, that many scientists are removed from the actual data. Those in the inner circle who share a belief in evolution are permitted to view the actual fossil, while others are selectively censored.
But castings are no substitute for the real thing, particularly if they are to be studied in detail. The science of human evolution lacks openness. Science, by its nature, should be open to the scrutiny of other colleagues. This is not the case in the field of human evolution.
Whenever research access is selectively limited, scientific objectivity is impaired. Fossil specimens should be open to the public. Creationists should be free to examine them. Science has always been open to all and benefits from a wide range of opinions.
Evolutionary bias also infects the search for fossils. Darwinian presuppositions work effectively to exclude fossils that do not fit the evolutionary model and to selectively classify others. Human fossils have been downgraded to appear more ape-like, and ape fossils have been made to seem more human-like.
French anthropologist Marcellin Boule published a series of scientific papers from 1911 to 1913, concluding that even though it had a larger brain size, Neandertal was closest to apes.
Boule, who found the most complete skeleton in Western Europe, ignored pathological evidence in the skeleton and assumed that the bones resembled an ape rather than a human. He concluded that his skeleton could not walk fully erect, but had bent knees and walked with his body leaning forward. He made the feet bend in, just like an ape’s.
In 1955, two Americans noticed that there were some very serious problems with Boule’s reconstruction. It took 44 years to expose the very obvious fact that Boule’s Neandertal skeleton suffered from severe arthritis. After the corrections, Neandertal stood upright and walked like a human. Although it had, on average, a larger head than modern humans and a low cranium with heavy brow ridges, it was obviously human. Many believe that if Mr. Neandertal were waiting in a crowd at a bus stop today, we could not distinguish him from other humans. Numerous other lines of evidence support the full humanity of Neandertals, like the fact that they:
• had the technology to build fires, manufacture a high-tech superglue,2 and construct stone-tipped spears3
• decorated their bodies with cosmetic pigments4 and feathers5
• buried their dead6
• interbred with the ancestors of some people alive today (as shown by DNA analysis)7
• had anatomical8 and genetic features9 consistent with the capacity for speech.
For 44 years it was believed that the Neandertal man was an evolutionary predecessor to man—all because of Boule’s enthusiastic fabrication. The popular idea of a brutish ape-like caveman has its origins not in the fossils, but in the mind of Boule. It can be seen now that Boule’s motivation for his erroneous reconstruction was to indoctrinate the public into acceptance of evolution.
Despite the later correction, Boule’s misrepresentation was not quickly removed. A life-size cave scene was drawn by famous artist Frederick Blaschke showing not one, but a whole family of Neandertals. It became a permanent display and a very popular exhibition in the hall of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History in the 1920s. This picture appeared in countless textbooks and other museums around the world. Amazingly, this cave scene stayed in the museum twenty years after it was disproved. Not only did this image linger on at the museum, it also remained for some time in textbooks and other museums around the world. This displayed an attitude that defied science and exposed the deep need to hold onto the evolutionary fantasy that humans evolved from brute beasts.
In Sussex, England, between 1908 and 1912, many parts of a human skull and two canine teeth were excavated, along with a primitive ape-like jaw. Significant parts of the upper and lower jaw were missing and the skull was in several parts. It was reconstructed, and castings were made and circulated to every major museum. There were other fossils found on the site, such as an elephant, mastodon, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, beaver, and deer.
The skull was called the ‘Piltdown Man’ and was considered a major find. It served for decades as proof of a link between man and his evolutionary ancestor. For 40 years, the authenticity of the fossil was widely accepted. In 1953, Kenneth Oakley, Joseph Weiner, and Wilfred Le Gros Clark exposed the skull as a fraud. The skullcap was actually fully human and the lower jaw fragments, including the teeth, were found in 1982 to be from a juvenile female orangutan. The jaw had been treated chemically to make it appear to match the skull.
It also should be noted that some of the mammalian bones found in that pit were planted and came from different areas, including the island of Malta and Tunisia. As early as 1916, there were reports of tampering, when dental anatomists noticed there were artificial abrasions on the teeth. These abrasions were clearly visible file marks on the orangutan’s teeth. It was reported that in order for the lower jaw to fit the skull, the canine teeth were filed so far down that the pulp cavity was exposed and then plugged. The Piltdown hoax was mortifying to the evolutionary movement. It is no longer mentioned in textbooks, but it is clear that a desire remains to connect man with ape.
The closely held fashion in which human fossils are handled lends itself to fraud and exaggeration. The Piltdown skull was locked up in a vault, and very few could study it. Science is supposed to be self-correcting, and in this case, it took close to 40 years to expose the fraud. Perhaps if the vault had been left open, this could have been avoided.
Sadly, exclusivity still reigns today. With very few points of reference, given the overwhelming lack of fossils, there is enormous opportunity for creative interpretation and, given the lack of evidence, unscientific license.
In 1922, Harold Cook found a single molar tooth in Nebraska. It was identified by Henry Osborn, a paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History, as belonging to an ape-man. Grafton Elliot Smith who was involved with the Piltdown hoax persuaded the prestigious Illustrated London News to publish an artist’s conception of what this man and his mate might look like. It had to be drawn using one tooth.
The magazine had worldwide distribution, and the illustration took two entire pages. It was published in June of 1922 and proclaimed as the ‘missing link’. This illustration was firmly implanted in the public’s mind during the famous Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’ in 1925. In 1928, the famous Nebraska man, based on a single tooth, came tumbling down. The tooth was discovered to be not that of an early man, but of an extinct pig. To add to the embarrassment, this ‘extinct’ pig was found in 1972 to be still alive in Paraguay.
Australopithecines (including ‘Lucy’)
The famous fossil ‘Lucy’ was found in Ethiopia by anthropologist Donald Johanson in 1974, and it was hailed as an intermediate link between humans and apes. Other fossils belonging to the same group (the australopithecines, meaning ‘southern apes’) have since been unearthed. But the Lucy skeleton is still the most complete of these, even though only 47 of its more than 200 total bones were recovered.10
The transitional status of Lucy’s kind is based on the presumption that they walked upright. But the evidence is strongly against that idea. The australopithecines appear to be just extinct apes, and not on the path to become human, because they had the following combination of features:
• A height of only about 1.1 meters (3 feet, 7 inches)
• A sloping, ape-like skull with a small braincase
• Muscular and highly curved fingers and toes for grasping tree branches11
• A locking-wrist mechanism used in knuckle-walking12
• An organ of balance in the inner-ear that was ape-like, not the kind for upright posture13
Still, evolutionists claim Lucy’s kind walked upright because she had a slanted femur, bringing her knees close together for better balance. However, spider monkeys and orangutans also have this type of angled femur, and nobody claims they are the ancestors of humans. Also, a sophisticated anatomical study by evolutionist Dr Charles Oxnard concluded that: “The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other.”14 In other words, the australopithecines were unique apes, not intermediate between humans and chimps.
Hobbits (Homo floresiensis)
In 2003, several miniature (just over 1 m tall) human skeletons were found on the Indonesian island of Flores. As usual, the discovery was interpreted through an evolutionary lens, and the ‘Hobbits’, as they were dubbed, were proclaimed to be an entirely different species of human that lived tens of thousands of years ago. However, many evolutionists themselves have argued that the fossils could be far younger, and they point to indications that the so-called Hobbits may have suffered from a disorder like microcephaly15 or, in at least one case, Down syndrome.16 In fact, it’s likely that these individuals are the not-too-distant ancestors of the pygmies that live on the island today. In any case, the Hobbit skeletons lend no support to evolution, as evolutionist themselves cannot even come to a consensus about their significance.
Where Are the Ape-Men?
Fossil bones that present evidence for a missing link, or ape-man, are extremely scarce. There is no clear body of evidence to support the claim that men descended from apes. The attempts made have a history of exaggeration and fraud.
Evolutionists do have a compelling reason to find fossil evidence of a transition from ape to man, but what has been found is either human or ape, not a missing link. Dr. Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, declares that the ultimate evolutionary icon is to show that man descended from apes. It is an attempt that, given the lack of evidence, is doomed to failure.
Wells cites Henry Gee, chief science writer for the prestigious science journal, Nature:
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage [from ape to man] is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.17
Consequences of Evolutionary Beliefs
Darwin’s Origin of Species is subtitled, The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin’s intent here was not racist, as the subtitle would seem to suggest. By the word ‘races’ he meant that all different species of animals would go through a gradual change through time, with natural selection.
However, in a later publication of The Descent of Man, he makes no excuses for what is an obviously racist idea, the effects of which would be felt well into the following century. Darwin states:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.18
The late Stephen Jay Gould, a prolific evangelist for evolution, acknowledged evolution’s racist impact, stating, Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.19
One sad example of the racist fallout from Darwinism is the ill treatment of Ota Benga, a pygmy from central Africa. Benga, a 23-year-old male was placed in the Bronx Zoo in 1904 and displayed as an emblematic savage—an evolutionary ancestor who was encouraged to spend time in the monkey house. “Bushman shares a cage with Bronx Apes” was the New York Times headline on September 9, 1904.
Francis Galton, the younger cousin of Charles Darwin, attempted to quantify human behavior. He insisted that intelligence correlated to moral behavior. Intelligence would lead to a moral life and vice versa. Galton believed that one’s genetic endowment is the sole determinant of the entire gamut of human characteristics. Such thinking leads directly to the conclusion that some ethnic groups are superior to others. Galton also said that the gene pool should not be contaminated and therefore believed in the separation of the races.
“Judicious marriages” of “a certain stock” of human beings over “several consecutive generations” would produce a highly gifted race of people, according to Galton. This type of racism was called eugenics, which sought to create a superior race.
Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), a German biologist who Darwin leaned on to prove evolution in the development of embryos, is remembered today for his forged illustrations of embryos. He also helped to make the case for legalized abortion by stating incorrectly that newborn infants are born deaf and without a conscience—which led to the idea that the newborn baby has no soul. So, what about the child inside the womb? Based on his logic, Haeckel said that abortion could not be considered murder. Haeckel was also strongly critical of the Bible for teaching racial equality, because he was a virulent white supremacist.20
Many scholars have noted that Darwinian biology greatly influenced the thinking of Hitler. Mein Kampf, written in 1924 by Hitler, is evidence of this. Historian Werner Maser states:
Darwin was the general source for Hitler’s notions in biology, worship, force, struggle, and of his rejection of moral causality in history.21
Hitler was dedicated to an Aryan super-race and was directly influenced by the American publication of The Passing of the Great Race by the eugenicist Madison Grant, first published in 1916. “The Nazis extermination of six million ‘racial undesirables’ began with the quiet implication of Galton’s eugenics.”22
In Germany, Ernst Haeckel helped establish evolution as an intellectual and academic movement in Germany. It has been said that he shaped Darwinian evolution in Germany.
Haeckelian Darwinism found its terroristic expression in national socialism. For Hitler, evolution was the hallmark of modern science and his “views of history, politics, religion, Christianity, nature, eugenics, science, art, and evolution, … coincide for the most part with those of Haeckel.” In the biological theory of Darwin, Hitler found his most powerful weapon against traditional values.23
The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he had made three fatal blunders in its application…. First … forcing the pace of evolution among his own people…. Second … his misconception of the evolutionary value of power…. And the third (and greatest) mistake was his failure to realize that such a monopoly of power meant insecurity for Britain, Russia, and America. His three great antagonists, although they do not preach the doctrine of evolution, are very consistent exponents of its tenets.24
Evolution and Communism
Karl Marx wanted to dedicate his Das Kapital to Darwin. Marx believed that Darwin’s book contained the basic view of ‘class struggle in history’. He read Darwin while in prison in December of 1860.
Defending Darwin is nothing new for socialists. The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start. When Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Friedrich Engels in which he said, “… this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”25
Joseph Stalin carried out the bloodiest massacres in world history by ordering the execution of 20 million people. He believed adamantly that the teaching of evolution would turn one against God and once God was removed, the people would be committed to the state. Pro-Stalin propaganda published in Moscow in 1940 illustrates this:
“I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,” Joseph [Stalin] said.
“What book is that?” I enquired.
“Darwin. You must read it,” Joseph impressed on me.26
Different from the Animals
It is ludicrous to assume that man is nothing else but an advanced form of animal. To see man as nothing but an intelligent life form can lead to unspeakable atrocities, as happened in the case of Nazism and communism. Evolution has sabotaged the intelligence of man with foolish thinking. Simple observation leads to the conclusion that there is a vast difference between animals and man.
So what makes humans different from animals? At least five observable characteristics: intelligence, language, creativity, moral conscience, and emotional depth. These illustrate the undeniable gulf between man and beasts.
Man’s intelligence enables him to think abstractly and come to logical conclusions. Animals have varying degrees of intelligence, as observed in their behavior patterns. However, when one looks at what can be accomplished by man—solving complex mathematical equations, designing bridges, formulating solutions to complex problems, making scientific discoveries—it is obvious that the intelligence of animals is of a grossly inferior order. Can you imagine a monkey programming a computer with a complex language?
The capacity of humans to employ symbolic language is unique to man. There have been some advances with primates using language, and animals do have their own unique methods of communicating, such as a dolphin’s sonar system. But while animals may use their senses to a higher degree, animal communication is not as complex as human language. Words and sentences have an abstract way of conveying concepts and information. Human language can convey enormous depth—as demonstrated by poetry, drama, and lyrics—and surpasses and is entirely distinct from animal language.
The creative capacity of man also distinguishes him from the animal kingdom. Humans have the ability to change and form things. They can use words, colors, sounds, symbols, tools and other things to form these elements into new expressions. The human face expresses within itself a uniqueness that can be identified from millions of other humans. No animal has the ability to form as many facial expressions as a human being.
Human hands, with opposable thumbs, have the ability to grasp and do fine detail work. Painting a picture, sculpting a statue, playing a musical instrument, singing a song, writing poetry, or even just a letter to a friend all reflect the unique creativity of man. Neither primates nor any other creature can creatively express themselves as can humans.
The ability to know right from wrong is truly human, and yet another marker dividing man from beast. There is, of course, trained behavior in which animals respond to a reward system. But this is no comparison to innate human moral consciousness. The legal system is an example of this difference. Justice for all, integrity, truthfulness, and honor are words that describe this phenomenon.
Evolutionists avoid this by blindly saying that over the years, man has gradually become aware of himself. They point out that this is an intellectual advancement due to evolutionary change. What the evolutionist fails to see is that this quality, the knowledge of good and evil, is deeply embedded in the spirit of man.
Humans, unlike animals, exhibit an enormous depth of emotion. The ability to feel pain, sorrow, love, or a thousand other emotions is much more intense with humans than with any other animal. This is true across the range of emotion—from horror to ecstasy. When a human smiles or frowns, he has the unique ability to externalize his emotional state. No creature on earth can experience so much emotional depth.
The human face, for example, is alone in the cosmos in its capacity to indicate fine degrees of emotion through a quarter million facial changes that are controlled by around 28 or more paper-thin muscles.27 These facial changes are used to magnify emotional depth by expressing the character of one’s human experience. This is unique to man.
Created in God’s Image
The evidence we have considered leads directly to the conclusion that all things—from molecule to man to the cosmos beyond—are the handiwork of a Creator of infinite intelligence. The heavens, the earth, all living organisms, including man, have characteristics that demonstrate order and design, a plan and a purpose. When, like a crime scene detective, one examines the physical evidence, the verdict is inescapable. It is just as Genesis declares: God did, indeed, create the heavens and the earth.
The random chaos that is the fundamental idea of evolution is altogether at odds with the rationality and design that we observe in creation. The mechanisms proposed for evolution do not square with the tenets of true science. Imagination, exaggeration, and in some cases, pure deception, are the hallmarks of the evolutionary movement.
Evolution has been advertised and marketed to the public as the only credible and intellectual explanation of the origins of the universe and all life. Many have accepted it without question because it has been dressed up with false scientific integrity. There are those, usually at the universities, who have zealously dogmatized the world with the canons of evolutionary thinking. They have become the priests in their own religion and work with an evangelistic energy to spread the faith of evolution. Yet this lie has had terrible practical consequences—among them abortion, Nazism, communism and different forms of socialism.
Man is unique in the universe. He stands upright and is truly built for a noble purpose. The honest study of creation brings one to the inescapable sense that there is One far greater than we. That humbling realization also points to the fact that we are more than matter. We are not just body and mind, but creatures with a soul, who have been created in God’s image to have a relationship and to commune with Him.
Jesus Christ, the Logos (Word), is the Creator, the one by whom “all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (Colossians 1:16). Yet He became flesh and came down to make the ultimate sacrifice at Calvary. The death and resurrection of our Creator give us a new hope. It is solely by His grace, not of ourselves, that we can come to Him.
It is when the Spirit of our Creator God convicts us that we realize we are part of the Creator’s plan. We simply cry out to Him in the realization of His great love for us, acknowledging that we are sinners and are willing to submit ourselves to the Creator, who is our Savior. If you have not already placed your faith in Jesus Christ, I urge you to do so—to meet your Maker, the One whose signature is engraved beyond question in the world He has made.
1. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science and Myth, Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 2001, p. 225.
2. Neandertal superglue, Creation 24(3):7, June 2002.
3. Michael Oard, Neandertal Man—the changing picture, Creation 25(4):10–14, September 2003.
4. Robert W. Carter, The Painted Neandertal, 20 May 2010, creation.com/the-painted-neandertal.
5. Carl Wieland, Flights of Fancy, Creation 36(4):19, October 2014.
6. Oard, Neandertal Man.
7. Robert W. Carter, Neandertal genome like ours, 01 June 2010, creation.com/neandertal-genome-like-ours.
8. Oard, Neandertal Man.
9. Peter Borger and Royal Truman, The FOXP2 gene supports Neandertals being fully human, Journal of Creation 22(2):13–14, August 2008.
10. Russell Grigg, Are there apemen in your ancestry? Creation 25(1)16–19, December 2002.
11. David Menton, Making man out of monkeys, 22 August 2000, creation.com/making-man-out-of-monkeys.
12. Michael Oard, Did Lucy walk upright? Journal of Creation 15(2)9–10, August 2001.
13. Carl Wieland, Lucy: walking tall—or wandering in circles?, 22 July 2005, creation.com/lucy-walking-tall-or-wandering-in-circles.
14. ‘Lucy’ isn’t the ‘Missing Link’!, Creation 12(3)32, June 1990.
15. Carl Wieland, Hobbit: New news is good news, 25 August, 2006, creation.com/hobbit-new-news-is-good-news.
16. David Klinghoffer, From PNAS, a Scathing Rebuke to Hype over Homo Floresiensis, Lost ‘Hobbit’ Species, 5 August, 2014, evolutionnews.org/2014/08/from_pnas_a_sca088671.html.
17. Wells, p. 221.
18. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, John Murray, London, 1901, pp. 241–242.
19. Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977, p. 127.
20. E. van Niekerk, Ernst Haeckel: a hostile witness to the truth of the Bible, 3 March 2011, creation.com/haeckel2.
21. Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto, Canada, 1987, p. 409.
22. Taylor, p. 410.
23. Kenneth J. Hsü, Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution, Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 56, September 1986, pp. 729–732.
24. Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, New York, 1947, p. 230, quoted in Kenneth J. Hsü, Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 56, September 1986.
25. Cliff Conner, Evolution vs. Creationism: In Defense of Scientific Thinking, International Socialist Review, Monthly Magazine Supplement to the Militant, November 1980.
26. E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1940, pp. 8–12, vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/StalinsBrutal.htm
27. There is actually substantial variation in the number of face muscles between individuals, it is not uncommon to have 40 or more.