Why can't creation scientists tell the difference

[McCulloch]

Comparison of Skulls
Jim Foley asks a good question. Creationists, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Why is it that the "Creation Scientists" cannot agree on which skulls belong to apes and which ones belong to humans?
KNM-ER 1813, Homo habilis considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Mehlert (1996) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be ape.
Java Man, Pithecanthropus I, Homo erectus considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) to be ape and by Mehlert
(1996) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Peking Man, Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) and Gish (1979) to be ape and by Mehlert (1996) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo habilis (or Homo rudolfensis) considered by Cuozzo (1998) Gish (1985) and Mehlert (1996) to be ape and by Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Taylor (1996) and Lubenow (1992) to be human.
Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) and Turkana Boy", Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) both considered to be ape by Cuozzo (1998) and human by the rest of the gang.

[jcrawford]

So, perhaps Lubenow is actually correct that Wood does (as of 1999) not classify habilis as a human ancestor, but it seems to be because Wood is proposing to redefine the genus Homo. At any rate, he seems to have messed up his references.

Good scholarly research on your part here, micatala. I'm really impressed with your penchant for intellectual details and references. It shows that you have the aptitude of a true scientist.

[jcrawford]

Unfortunately, very few (if any) creationists and IDers actually understand science itself or the details of the data that underlie evolution. This is evidenced in the loud cries against "ape-men" (and claims of racism, hee hee hee), but a complete inability to separate human skulls from ape skulls. The cries are many that "there are no transitional fossils," but when they hold the fossils in their hands, they can't tell where to "draw the line."

You must remember Jose, as Lubenow has clearly shown, creation science can be as self-correcting, revisionist and up-dating as any portion of neo-Darwinist 'science.'

[Jose]

You must remember Jose, as Lubenow has clearly shown, creation science can be as self-correcting, revisionist and up-dating as any portion of neo-Darwinist 'science.

Yes, I see what you mean. There was a time that creation science said that natural selection did not, and could not exist, and that new species never appear. Now, natural selection and speciation are accepted, but diversification at the level of families is where they draw the line. Natural selection is accepted, as in the peppered moths and antibiotic resistance, but the claim is that "it's not evolution because they didn't turn into different creatures." So, you're right. The strategies for denying evolution have changed. So have the strategies for attempting to get creationism into the classroom. The only thing that hasn't changed is the pre-defined conclusion, that a particular and rather narrow view of genesis is historically and scientifically correct.

[jcrawford]

Yes, I see what you mean. There was a time that creation science said that natural selection did not, and could not exist, and that new species never appear. Now, natural selection and speciation are accepted, but diversification at the level of families is where they draw the line. Natural selection is accepted, as in the peppered moths and antibiotic resistance, but the claim is that "it's not evolution because they didn't turn into different creatures." So, you're right. The strategies for denying evolution have changed. So have the strategies for attempting to get creationism into the classroom. The only thing that hasn't changed is the pre-defined conclusion, that a particular and rather narrow view of genesis is historically and scientifically correct.

They do use the Bible as a guide to ascertaining the truth about what non-believers may say about human life and the world, but I doubt that they use it a science textbook for physics, chemistry or biology. A lot of medical doctors and health researchers know an awful lot about modern biology and very little if nothing, about fossils, you know, and physicists, civil and aeronautic engineers don't need to know anything about biology in order to pursue their vocations.

Darwin's theory of evolution plays a very tiny minor role in the everyday worklife of most scientists who are much more interested in the future than the past and only value data about history to the degree that it shines any light on their current work. Despite claims to the contrary, evoutionist theory contributes nothing to modern science because there is no area in which such theories may be applied for any practical purpose other than indoctrination into a materialistic mindset which seeks to dominate and subdue all traditional, cultural and religious beliefs about human origins and ancestry.

[QED]

They do use the Bible as a guide to ascertaining the truth about what non-believers may say about human life and the world, but I doubt that they use it a science textbook for physics, chemistry or biology. A lot of medical doctors and health researchers know an awful lot about modern biology and very little if nothing, about fossils, you know, and physicists, civil and aeronautic engineers don't need to know anything about biology in order to pursue their vocations.

I simply have to step in having read this. It demonstrates the danger in compartmentalising knowledge -- revealing arbitrarily drawn divisions between subjects that are of a whole and cannot be divided without losing integrity. I hope jcrawford never finds himself at 30,000' on an aircraft designed by an aeronautic engineer ignorant of biology. But there is more to this than humor.

Darwin's theory of evolution plays a very tiny minor role in the everyday worklife of most scientists who are much more interested in the future than the past and only value data about history to the degree that it shines any light on their current work. Despite claims to the contrary, evoutionist theory contributes nothing to modern science because there is no area in which such theories may be applied for any practical purpose other than indoctrination into a materialistic mindset which seeks to dominate and subdue all traditional, cultural and religious beliefs about human origins and ancestry.

Wrong. Although you have drawn down the shades on this by refusing to discuss it when I brought it up in BOC there is a whole area of engineering that specifically uses "evolutionist theory" to produce autonomous design. The reason for this is that in order to produce optimum designs in the past, engineers had to figure out every single detail of a system riddled with interdependent variables. This task becomes exponentially difficult and uncomputable as more variables are introduced. However it has been realized that evolution theory can be applied directly to the task and as a result the field of Genetic Algorithm and Programming has emerged.

What you ought to consider is that the design products resulting from this technique can be superior to man-made products and that in the case of Genetic Programming, the operation of the product is not even necessarily fully understood. All that is known is that it represents a better design solution to anything that human designers have been able to come up with. In such a case you ought to be asking yourself who the designer is.

[USIncognito]

Ahhh. My first DC.com iggy. Now I feel like this virtual house is truly a home (page).

[Jose]

They do use the Bible as a guide to ascertaining the truth about what non-believers may say about human life and the world, but I doubt that they use it a science textbook for physics, chemistry or biology. A lot of medical doctors and health researchers know an awful lot about modern biology and very little if nothing, about fossils, you know, and physicists, civil and aeronautic engineers don't need to know anything about biology in order to pursue their vocations.

Very good! You sidestepped my message very neatly. In addition to QED's point about aeronautical engineers' need to know some biology, I will suggest that evolutionary biology is far greater than merely fossils. While your basic statement is true, that there are a great many medical doctors and professionals in other fields who perform the craft as technicians, for many of them the details of how they perform that craft are based on research that relies fully on evolutionary theory.

Darwin's theory of evolution plays a very tiny minor role in the everyday worklife of most scientists who are much more interested in the future than the past and only value data about history to the degree that it shines any light on their current work. Despite claims to the contrary, evoutionist theory contributes nothing to modern science because there is no area in which such theories may be applied for any practical purpose other than indoctrination into a materialistic mindset which seeks to dominate and subdue all traditional, cultural and religious beliefs about human origins and ancestry.

We have at least one thread that addresses the issue you've raised. Look at Is Evolution an Essential Theory in Science. The bottom line here is that you've swallowed the anti-evolutionists' malarky hook, line, and sinker. The vast majority of current research in evolutionary biology looks at present day events. The dramatic advances in understanding of cancer, embryology, and many other medical issues are a direct result of the success of evolutionary theory. Sure, you can stick your fingers in your ears and sing tunelessly and pretend that this is not so, and you can base your misinformation campaign on false assertions, but that doesn't change the fact that medicine is marching on, advancing because of the impact of evolutionary understanding. You may fight it, but you will reap its benefits.

[jcrawford]

They do use the Bible as a guide to ascertaining the truth about what non-believers may say about human life and the world, but I doubt that they use it a science textbook for physics, chemistry or biology. A lot of medical doctors and health researchers know an awful lot about modern biology and very little if nothing, about fossils, you know, and physicists, civil and aeronautic engineers don't need to know anything about biology in order to pursue their vocations.

Very good! You sidestepped my message very neatly.

Getting back on topic, Jose, can you tell which of the fossils Mcculloch posted are human?

[micatala]

Getting back on topic, Jose, can you tell which of the fossils Mcculloch posted are human?

I certainly won't suggest that Jose not answer this question, but since the thread is about why creationists can't seem to agree on how to do this, this is really more the creationists' job than his.

[jcrawford]

Getting back on topic, Jose, can you tell which of the fossils Mcculloch posted are human?

I certainly won't suggest that Jose not answer this question, but since the thread is about why creationists can't seem to agree on how to do this, this is really more the creationists' job than his.

If evolutionists can't tell the difference either, why hold creationists accountable for not being able to do the job for them?

Care to have a go at it yourself, since Lubenow and I have already correctly identified the fossils for both you and Jose. It shouldn't be too difficult now unless of course Lubenow and I are highly suspect of not being experts on the human fossil record and might be mistaken about at least one of the fossils.