REALL News - Vol 06 No 05 - 1998

Magazine Overview

Title: The REALL News
Issue: Volume 6 Issue 5
Date: June/July 1998
Article Title: A Visit to the Institute for Creation Research: Part 2: Fossils and Post-Flood Man
Author: Karen Bartelt, Ph.D.

This article is the second part of a review of the Institute for Creation Research's (ICR) Museum of Creation and Earth Science in Santee, CA. The author, Karen Bartelt, Ph.D., visited the museum with a group of skeptics on January 9, 1998. The museum's brochure promises answers to questions about religion versus science, pain and suffering, the Genesis Flood, the age of the earth, and the origins of mankind, nations, and languages, stating, "You've heard the stories -- now confront the facts!"

Bartelt chose to explore the museum independently. She noted that the museum was nearly empty except for their group of about 25 skeptics and that photography was permitted. She focused her attention on the exhibits concerning fossil humans, geology, and the Flood.

Fossils and Post-Flood Man Exhibit

The museum's entrance is themed around the seven days of creation from Genesis 1. Scale models of the Tower of Babel and Noah's Ark are present, with a painting depicting dinosaurs in the Ark's stalls with manure-free floors.

The "Fossils and Post-Flood Man" exhibit features bas-relief skulls of pre- and archaic humans. Bartelt questions why complete skeletons are not shown, suggesting it might obscure transitional features. The information presented is described as a mix of accuracy and conjecture.

Regarding *Homo erectus*, the ICR presents an "alternative" evolutionary explanation, suggesting *H. erectus* is "true man" with a cranial capacity within the lower range of modern man. Bartelt disputes this, noting that even paleontologists who group fossils broadly (lumpers) would not consider *H. erectus* to be "true man." The creationist explanation is ambiguous, stating *H. erectus* is "probably a true human being" but also potentially "extinct apes." No evidence is provided for these claims. Bartelt points out that while *H. erectus* is associated with stone tools and fire, evidence of burial, cremation, and red ocher art is more commonly linked to Neanderthals, not *H. erectus*. She also notes the omission of differences between stone tools associated with *H. erectus* and Neanderthals.

For Neanderthals, the ICR states about 300 individuals have been found, mostly in Europe, and that their relationship to modern humans is an ongoing anthropological problem. The creationist interpretation is that Neanderthals were simply cold-adapted modern humans. Bartelt counters that significant differences in bone and skull structure exist between Eskimos (cited as an example of cold adaptation) and Neanderthals. She highlights the omission of molecular data (mitochondrial DNA differences) that suggests Neanderthals and *H. sapiens* evolved separately for approximately 500,000 years, citing recent research on Neanderthal precursors in Spain.

An "Archaic Homo sapiens" display features "40 fossils" with larger cranial capacities than *H. erectus* that do not fit other categories. These are also presented as post-Flood genetic diversity, with no further information.

"Cave Men," possibly Cro-Magnons, are described as "weaker, probably degenerate, descendants of those migrating away from Babel." They are depicted as leading simple lives without technology, living in Job's time. Bartelt disputes this interpretation, noting that Job 30 refers to them as a "senseless, disreputable brood" but not necessarily primitive. She also points out the omission of cave paintings and bone artifacts made by "cave men," which would contradict the depiction of degeneracy.

Human Migration and Genetic Diversity

The ICR display asserts that these fossils represent "Post-Flood ethnic and/or language groups" and demonstrate "man's genetic diversity." It claims humans migrated globally during a post-Flood/post-Babel ice age, facilitated by lowered sea levels and confused languages. The "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10 is cited, but Bartelt notes that Genesis 10 only names places in the Middle East, not India, China, or Australia.

Bartelt criticizes the omission of significant geologic details, such as the uniform finding of *H. erectus*, Neanderthal, and "cave man" fossils in strata below those with agriculture and urban centers. She also questions why these "degenerate fossils" are not found in the Americas, given the time since the Tower of Babel. The absence of pre-Flood human fossils is also noted.

Origin of Languages and Genetics

The ICR attributes the origin of languages solely to the Genesis 11:1-9 account of the Tower of Babel, stating that archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence is compatible with this Biblical record. They cite linguist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, suggesting genes and language diverged simultaneously.

Bartelt critically examines Cavalli-Sforza's work, showing that he disagrees with the ICR's timeline, suggesting archaic sapiens populated the world hundreds of thousands of years ago, with Neanderthals appearing much later. Cavalli-Sforza also addresses the scarcity of "fossil" linguistic information and the difficulty in determining single or multiple origins of languages. While the ICR highlights the relationship between genes and language as supporting a creation model, Bartelt points out that Cavalli-Sforza's evidence is consistent with evolutionary theory, describing punctuated evolution through population splits and migrations originating in Africa.

Bartelt concludes that the ICR display is unique in its "sin of omission" regarding human fossils, preventing visitors from making real comparisons. Key details like the gradual increase in skull size, the geological strata, and even basic data about *H. erectus* are left out or misrepresented. No positive evidence for the "creation model" is presented, and the author expected to see evidence of pre-Flood humans and explanations for the lack of degeneration in the Americas.

Conclusion and Critique

Bartelt expresses distress at the ICR's use of scientific ideas out of context to support their narrative. She emphasizes that Cavalli-Sforza's work does not support the ICR's premises regarding human populations and languages. She finds no independent confirmation of the Tower of Babel or the ICR's migration model, and substantial evidence to the contrary. She questions how "degenerate" people migrating from Babel could speak complex languages.

She concludes that many "facts" were missing or wrong, but she was ready for more facts concerning creationist geology and the Flood in Part III.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The article's primary theme is a critical examination of creationist interpretations of human origins and evolution as presented in a museum exhibit. The author, Karen Bartelt, Ph.D., adopts a skeptical stance, contrasting the ICR's claims with mainstream scientific understanding and the original sources cited by the ICR. The editorial stance is one of scientific accuracy and a critique of what the author perceives as misrepresentation and omission of evidence by creationist organizations. The article advocates for evidence-based understanding in fields like paleontology, anthropology, and linguistics.