5 Orangutans, Monkeys And Man

When studied at the level of molecules, cells, or fossil bones, the evolutionary ancestors of people (ape-man or man-like-apes) are not to be found. In spite of this, elaborate attempts are made to “prove” that man evolved from early primates (ape-like creatures). As one surveys the literature regarding our supposed human evolutionary ancestors, not much agreement is found. A claim by one evolutionist is negated with claims by another.

In the late sixties and early seventies, much of the scientific community ruled Ramapithecus (an ape-like creature) ancestral to the orangutan or to an ape, instead of its original position as ancestral to humans. When considering Ramapithecus in 1973, Alan Walker and Peter Andrews wrote their belief that the jaw of Ramapithecus was that of a true ape (Nature, Vol. 244, 1973, p. 313).

Yet, in 1982, the son of Louis and Mary Leakey (world famous pioneers in the study of “prehistoric” man) stated:

Ramapithecines are thought to be the group from which our ancestors evolved.57

Piltdown Man

If Ramapithecus appears in school or college textbooks as part of the evolution of man, it can be discarded, as should the Piltdown Man, which was shown to be a hoax in 1953.58 Piltdown’s filed teeth and bone had been stained to make it appear to be ancient.

Fourteen years after Piltdown Man was proven by the evolutionary scientific community to be a total fake and bad joke, Harvard University Press published these words (admittedly this is a long quote, but I include it to display how far the evolutionary community will go to support their insupportable claims, even years after one of their “evidences” has been proven to be a fraud):

Unlike all other fossil men is Eoanthropus, known from a fragmentary skull and the right half of a lower jaw with two teeth, the first and second molars, in place. The specimens were obtained by Mr. William Dawson from a small opening by the roadside at Piltdown, Sussex, England, and described by Sir Arthur Smith Woodward. It is difficult to determine their age, for fragments of mammals, characteristic of the Pliocene and Pleistocene, are mingled in the river-borne gravel. If contemporaneous with the most modern of them, Piltdown man was probably not more recent than the third interglacial stage, since Hippopotamus and other subtropical animals occur with it.

The skull is so fragmentary that those who have studied it have been unable to agree as to the proper reconstruction: estimates of its cranial capacity have varied from 1079 cc. to 1500 cc., and an intermediate figure of about 1300 cc. has finally been reached. It is not at all of the Neanderthal type, but has a high forehead like that of modern man. Aside from the fact that the bones are exceedingly thick, it is not peculiar. The jaw, however, is admitted by all to be more like that of a chimpanzee than like that of any man, living or extinct. This was recognized in the original description. The two teeth are like human molars, but the remainder of the jaw affords too much space to be filled by ordinary teeth. Hence, in his restoration of the anterior part, Smith Woodward made the canines large, like those of a chimpanzee, and allowed for a small diastema. The correctness of his view was demonstrated in a striking way the year after publication, when Dawson and Father Teilhard de Chardin, who were resifting the gravel at the spot where the jaw was found, found a large canine. It is twice as large as that of a man and almost exactly like that of a modern chimpanzee. This association seemed to many to be an unnatural one, so the jaw was attributed by some to a species of chimpanzee. The later finding of a few more fragments at a near-by site seems, however, to have convinced most of those interested that skull and jaw belong together. Eoanthropus dawsoni (Piltdown Man) is to some people the missing link between man and the apes. The forehead is high, the brow ridge insignificant, and the brain large, all features of man, but the chinless jaw has the big canines of an ape.59

Thus as late as 1967, the prestigious Harvard University Press was still promoting the Piltdown Hoax as a possible “...missing link between man and the apes,” when it had been proven a sham nearly fifteen years earlier.

Nebraska Man

Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was formed from a single tooth found in 1922. Evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn, of the American Museum of Natural History, published in the Illustrated London News (June 24, 1922) a picture of a man, a woman and their tools from this one tooth. A few years later, the skull was found and the tooth fit perfectly in the empty socket—it was a pig’s tooth!60

Neanderthal And Cro-Magnon

We might also add that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man are now believed to be normal European ‘Homo sapiens.’ Some of these “prehistoric men” have a larger brain cavity than modern man.

Dr. Percy E. Raymond of Harvard University, states in regard to Neanderthal:

In actual capacity, the cranial cavity was larger than that of the average European, some skulls measuring l,600 cc.61

Donald Johanson, one of the world’s most recognized experts on “fossil man,” writes:

...Neanderthal Man. He was another Homo. Some think he was the same species as ourselves....

I consider Neanderthal nonspecific with sapiens, with myself. One hears talk about putting him in a business suit and turning him loose in the subway. It is true; one could do it, and he would never be noticed. He was just a little heavier-boned than people of today, more primitive in a few facial features. But he was a man. His brain was as big as modern man’s, but shaped in a slightly different way. Could he make change at the subway booth and recognize a token? He certainly could.62

According to evolutionist Johanson, Neanderthal is not prehistoric man, not some ancient evolutionary ancestor, but is just like us, modern man! It has also now been proven that Neanderthals made and played musical instruments and that they buried their dead, just like we do!

Peking Man

Peking Man has been categorized as Homo erectus. He disappeared during World War II. There is not a single bone left of Peking Man, although books have been written about the international search for the “bones.”

An entertaining and readable book on the search for Peking Man was written by Christopher Janus with William Brashler, entitled, The Search for Peking Man. Mentioned in the book as one of the people who aided in the discovery of Peking Man is Teilhard De Chardin—one of the perpetrators of the Piltdown Man hoax!63 Since De Chardin was implicated in the Piltdown hoax and managed to involve himself with Peking Man as well, how can we be certain that the documentation we have of Peking man is reliable?

Janus records the total number of Peking Man fossil fragments before the Japanese invasion of China:

...they labeled, described, photographed and categorized the casts of the 175 fossil fragments that had been collected.64

Peking Man supposedly consisted of:

...5 skulls, about 150 jaw fragments and teeth, 9 thigh bones and fragments, 2 upper arm bones, a collar bone, and a wrist bone.65

All these bones have disappeared! Apparently, the evolutionary scientists cannot even agree on how many bones represented Peking Man. Johanson records:

...5 skulls, 15 smaller pieces of the skull or face, 14 lower jaws and 152 teeth.66

So there is no hard evidence that Peking Man is an ancestor of Homo sapiens. Some photographs of Peking skulls remain. The skulls were broken into from the rear and most probably, the brains served as food for true Homo sapiens. It would hardly be likely that the ancient ancestor of man lived concurrently with man and that his brains would be considered a delicacy of his great-grandchildren, Homo sapiens. As early as 1957, French paleontologist, Dr. Marcellin Boule, proposed that the people who made the tools that killed Peking Man were true Homo sapiens.67

Java Man

Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered a creature in the Homo erectus category, which he called “Java Man.” Java Man was a skullcap and leg-bone (Trinil femur). By the end of his life, Dubois recanted. He believed the leg-bone to belong to Homo sapiens and the skullcap to be that of a giant ape or gibbon. Java man was the first of the Homo erectus category. Perhaps a paragraph from Marvin Lubenow’s excellent book, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), p.127, would be helpful.

When people become aware of the massive misrepresentation of the dates for the Homo erectus fossil material, they act perplexed. But the factual evidence is so clear that it cannot successfully be challenged. The perplexity usually gives way to the question, “Why do evolutionists do this?” The answer is obvious. If the date range of all the fossils having Homo erectus morphology were commonly published on a chart as they are in this book, it would be clear that human evolution has not taken place. However, it is possible that evolutionists are not being intentionally deceptive. The reason may be deeper and more complex. Because of evolutionists’ faith in and commitment to evolution, I believe we are seeing a psychological phenomenon. Evolutionists give us the dates they want Homo erectus to have, the dates they wish Homo erectus would have. I suspect it is more a case of self-deception on the part of evolutionists than it is an attempt to deceive others. It indicates how deeply their faith has colored their facts (Emphasis mine).

Heidelberg Man

The other commonly mentioned Homo erectus is Heidelberg Man. Evolutionist Johanson writes:

Heidelberg Man, for example, was named Homo heidelbergensis. His finder recognized that he was a man and, thus, belonged in the genus Homo, but decided to put him in a species of his own.68

Heidelberg Man consists of a single fossil—a lower jaw with teeth.69 Heidelberg Man is imagination built around a “jawbone!” Some researchers place this fossil jawbone with the Neandertals.

“Lucy” And The Australopithecines

Even Australopithecus is open to question. The star of this “human ancestor” is Donald Johanson’s 3½ foot tall “Lucy.” Supposedly, Lucy was the first creature to walk on two feet instead of four feet, like other apes did (and still do). Lucy resembles Homo sapiens in three ways (theoretically): her knee, arm-leg length, and left pelvic bone. Except for her human-like knee joint, Lucy’s bones resemble the skeleton of an extinct pygmy chimp.

Fossil “Man” Skeletons Are Composites

To be fair to the evolutionists, the fossil skeletons that they put together are almost always composites. In other words, they take a certain area of a country, assume that any bones found there probably came from the same creatures, and then often bring a bone from here and one from there and “compose” a skeleton.

Johanson published Lucy’s arm-leg length ratio to be 83.9%. In other words her arm bone was said to be 83.9% as long as her leg bone. This would place her about midway between ape (arm and leg of roughly equal length) and human (arm about 75% of leg length). The 83.9% seems quite specific, but the leg-bone had been broken in two or more places and one end was crushed. The pieces do not fit perfectly together, so there is no way to accurately measure it. The 83.9% sounds good, but it is a guess (See Ex Nihilo, Vol. 6, 1983, p. 5).

The other human-like bone is the left pelvic bone. This bone is complete and is used to prove Lucy walked upright. The problem is that this bone does not prove upright walking. Johanson believes the bone has been distorted by some means. And yet, there is no other pelvic bone with which to compare it. The bone as it stands, more likely shows Lucy to have walked on all fours!

According to another evolutionist, Dr. Solly Zuckerman, Australopithecus is an ape and walked on all fours like an ape. Zuckerman evaluated the pelvic bone of the Australopithecines and he concluded that this telltale bone corresponded in one type of measurement to monkeys and baboons. Looking at it from another angle, it was “...completely unlike man, and identical with monkeys and apes.”70

Fellow evolutionist Dr. Charles Oxnard believes Australopithecus walked in a fashion similar to a chimpanzee71 or an orangutan. Oxnard writes:

Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made but...the information...shows that whereas the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form; when they do have similarities with living species, they are as often as not reminiscent of the orangutan.72

Lyall Watson is right. There does not appear to be enough bones from “true” fossil man “...to fill a single coffin.” [If fossils interest you, Marvin Lubenow’s, Bones of Contention, and Dr. Duane Gish’s, The Fossils Still Say No! are excellent and can be found at most Christian bookstores or at www.icr.org or www.answeresingenesis.org.]

Richard Milton, atheist and evolutionist, says it this way:

In human anthropology, each new fragment of bone or tooth is enthusiastically greeted as further evidence of man’s descent by natural selection from an ancestral apelike creature when...every single find of this sort has been definitively assigned to either humans or apes, not to any intermediate category.

This intellectual degeneracy is the outward expression of the fact that neo-Darwinism has ceased to be a scientific theory and has been transformed into an ideology—an overarching belief system that pervades all thinking in the life sciences and beyond.73

Milton doesn’t pull any punches. He later writes that true science should be open to debate. And that good science is hard work.

Because it is a difficult job, a tacit understanding has arisen that it would be bad form or unseemly to criticize science or scientists seriously, as if they were a banker who added up sums wrongly or a grocer who forgot to deliver the sausages.

I reject this tacit consensus. I am a customer for the scientific service that we pay scientists to provide and I have a customer complaint: I am not satisfied with the answers they have provided on the mechanism of evolution and I want them to go back to their laboratories and investigate further.

I believe it is high time that consumerism finds a voice in the public sector and in the academic world as effectively as it has in industry and commerce. And I do not accept the convention that scientists may be criticized only by their peers.74

Just so that there is no mistake as to where Mr. Milton is coming from, permit me to quote him a bit more. His book accuses his fellow evolutionists of having no evidence for their evolutionary claims, especially in relationship to the evolution of man. He says that he experienced a “kind of witch-hunting activity by the Darwinist police” (p. 268) when he published Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. Famous Oxford zoologist, Richard Dawkins, described Milton as being “loony,” “stupid,” and “in need of psychiatric help.” Dr. Dawkins went behind Milton’s back and wrote, “...letters to newspaper editors alleging that I am a secret creationist and hence not to be believed” (p. 268). Milton continues:

Let me make it unambiguously clear that I am not a creationist, nor do I have any religious beliefs of any kind. I am a professional writer and journalist who specializes in writing about science and technology and who writes about matters that I believe are of public interest.

For anyone, anywhere, to say that I am a creationist, a secret creationist, a “creationist ally,” or any other such weasel-word formulation, is an act of intellectual dishonesty by those who have no other answer to the scientific objections I have raised publicly....

Darwinism still has a large number of critics and it isn’t only creationists who have serious doubts about the theory or who have questioned the established view of historical geology.75

You have to respect this man! He has more intellectual honesty than a lot of so-called Christians and he has taken a lot of flack for it. But Brothers and sisters in Christ, let us be as courageous in defending the faith! Let us not be intimidated by the wisdom of men. Rather, let us be transformed by the knowledge of God “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10).

My dear friend, Mark Cahill, fearless defender of the faith, reminds us of 1 Peter 4:14a: “If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you.”

And then Luke 6:22,23a:

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the son of man’s sake. Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven....

Let us boldly proclaim the Word of God and if we get rejected, let us leap for joy! For the Spirit of glory and of God will rest upon us and great will be our reward in heaven! Hey, my brothers and sisters, when is the last time you got rejected for proclaiming the name and creation works of Jesus. Were you leaping for joy or sad and dejected? Rejection for Jesus’ sake brings glory and joy.

Anthropological Art

Even the artwork typically used to depict creatures gradually evolving from monkey-likeness to man is questionable. Those National Geographic-type pictures of apes gradually becoming more and more human until you finally see the man on the street (usually with an ape-like haircut and a beard) are called anthropological art.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination, than evidence.... Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being: the older a specimen is said to be, the more ape-like they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture.

The guesswork approach often leads to errors.76

How did the above words get into an evolutionary magazine like Science Digest (now defunct)? Those National Geographic pictures of “evolving” man are “artists’ conceptions,” “imagination,” and “guesswork.” When is the last time you saw a bone with hair on it? Or how do the artists know what kind of ears or lips to put on skull fragments or even whole skulls? Have you ever seen a bone with a lip on it? As Science Digest confesses, it is the artists’ “imagination.” This is not science!

Every bone or bone particle discovered so far has been classified, by one evolution expert or another, as ape, monkey, or man—not ape-man or man-ape. The evolutionists do not agree with each other as to which fossils prove to be evolving man. It is nice, though, that for the most part, they do not straddle the fence. One researcher’s human ancestor is another researcher’s orangutan or pygmy chimp. The researchers courageously (and it is courageously) publish their differences while maintaining unwavering faith that an unbroken chain of evidence (proving they evolved from some primate) will one day be found.

Is A Monkey Almost A Man?

There are other facts to be considered when attempting to prove that man had ape-like evolutionary ancestors. J. W. Klotz lists a few of the important differences between man and the primates.77 I have edited Dr. Klotz’s list of 31 major differences down to the ten most outstanding in my opinion. If man evolved from the primates, then everything in the right column (characteristics of primates) would have to somehow evolve into the characteristics of man in the left column.

MAN

PRIMATE

1. Permanent bipedal locomotion

1. Walks on all fours

2. Great toe in line with other toes

2. Great toe like a thumb

3. Brain larger

3. Brain smaller

4. Head balanced on top of the spinal column

4. Head hinged in front of spinal column

5. Less mature at birth

5. More mature at birth

6. More vertebrae

6. Less vertebrae

7. Shorter arms

7. Longer arms

8. Longer legs

8. Shorter legs

9. One type hand

9. Another type hand

10. 46 chromosomes

10. 48 chromosomes

There are real, basic differences between man and the primates. Let us examine three.

The Great Toe

What would it take to evolve a great toe like that on the foot of a primate into a great toe like one on the foot of a man? This digit on a primate is located and functions like a thumb. With its thumb-like great toe, it can grab onto a tree limb.

And yet the great toe of man comes out the front of his foot in a line with his other toes. In reality, there is no animal in the supposed evolutionary family of man with a great toe positioned somewhere between man’s “out the front” and primate’s “more toward the rear and out the side.” There are no living animals and no fossil animals that have yet been found that display a great toe migrating toward the front of the foot. Surely “survival of the fittest” would ensnare and destroy any primate that lost its ability to grab limbs with its “evolving higher” great toe! It would quickly become extinct and would not evolve on up in the “evolutionary chain” to man. Perhaps this is why no fossils have been found of a migrating great toe—any mutation in that direction got eliminated in one generation.

Head Placement

The placement of the head is also quite significant. A human head is balanced on top of the spinal column to facilitate walking and running in the upright, two-legged position. Where is the evidence that the primates somehow managed to move their heads from being hinged in front of the spinal column (for ease of function on all fours) to the top of the spinal column as in humans? How could a creature function, whose head was placed halfway between the primate and man? Obviously, the “survival of the fittest” would catch up with it also. It would probably become extinct in a single evolutionary moment.

Baby Humans Are Helpless

Evolution seems to be going in reverse as you look at the ability of human babies to survive, compared to the primates. Human babies are totally helpless at birth and for months afterward. Baby apes are ready to run to safety or climb onto their mother’s back for a ride soon after birth. How would those first human babies have survived? And, what is the probability that the last set of ape-parents would give birth to dizygotic twins (a male and female) which could not only survive as the first non-ape human babies, but could reproduce offspring (male and female) which could again reproduce and on and on? And, why do we still have so many species of apes and monkeys, if they are evolving out of something and into something else, perhaps even into people? Again, may I emphasize the fact that what we see over the span of recorded history, in fossils and in real life today, are discrete, identifiable animals, plants and people; not intermediate, transitional life forms.

A Massive Population Problem

If, as evolutionists believe, monkey-like creatures evolved into man about 1 million years ago (Lucy is said to be around 2.8 million years old and some of the more recentlydiscovered “humanoid” or “hominid” bones are said to be much older than Lucy, possibly eliminating her from the evolutionists “tree of human life.”), we would anticipate a massive population problem. Dr. Henry Morris gives some interesting figures in his book, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, published in 1970. Assuming parents lived to the age of 35 and had four children, roughly 3 billion people would have been produced in just the first thousand years! You might say, “Well, that is too many children.” Dr. Morris shows the figures for a family with three children, using the same condition as above. In roughly 2000 years, the population of earth would have reached about 4½ billion. With 2.5 children per family and extending the length of a generation to 43 years, in little more than 4 thousand years, 3 billion people would populate the earth. To quote Dr. Morris verbatim: “It begins to be glaringly evident that the human race cannot be very old!”78

According to Dr. Morris, if the earth’s population started with two people 4,300 years ago, it would only have to increase at the rate of 0.5% per year in order to reach the population of the world of 1970. This 0.5% is significantly less than the 1970 population growth rate of about 2% per year. The farther back in history you go, the higher is the percentage of growth. Less industrialized people have bigger families on the average.

Dr. Morris states that the best secular estimate of world population at the time of Christ is 200,000,000 people. Using 2.75 children per family, plus a 40-year generation and starting with two people in 2340 B.C., there would have been about 210 million people alive in A.D. 1. These figures would fit the Biblical time frame nicely

Population, Disease And Wars

Bringing into consideration the effects of disease and wars on population growth, Dr. Morris says:

But what about the possibility that the great plagues and wars of the past may have served to keep the population from growing at the indicated rates? Could the population have remained static for long ages and only in modern times have started to expand?

We are unable to answer these questions dogmatically, of course, since population data are unavailable for earlier times....

Furthermore, there is really no evidence that the growth of population has been retarded by wars or disease epidemics. The past century, which has experienced the greatest mushrooming of populations, has also witnessed the most destructive wars in all history, as well as the worst plagues and famines.79

Dr. Morris singles out the Jewish people as a good example of the accuracy of his population estimates. The Jewish people had no homeland for many years. They suffered persecution and the holocaust. Morris states that if the average Jewish family had 2.4 children and a 43-year generation, after 3,700 years (beginning about the time of the patriarch, Jacob) there should have been 13,900,000 Jewish people alive by 1970.80 The God of the Bible in Genesis 46:27 says: “And all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were three score and ten.” That is a total of 70 family members who came down to live in Egypt. But about 400 years later, at the Exodus, several million descendants crossed the Red Sea on dry ground! Without birth control, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, populations grow rapidly and exponentially.

Man could not possibly have been here as man for even 1,000,000 years. Using Morris’ figures, 1,000,000 years is over 28,600 generations, which would put the world population of 1970 at 10 to the 5,000th power! That is enough people to fill the entire universe, and we are not including rats and rabbits. As Dr. Morris said,

It begins to be glaringly evident that the human race cannot be very old! ...the assumption of the evolutionists that man first appeared a million or more years ago becomes completely absurd when examined in the light of population statistics.81

If man has been recognizable as man for 30 million years, 15 million years or even 500,000 years, there should be hundreds of billions of fossils scattered in huge piles all over the earth! Where is fossil man? Let’s face it—man has not been and cannot have been on earth for very much longer than a few thousand years! If studies of population statistics demand a short (few thousand years) history of man on earth, then evolution of man over thousands or millions of years is most unlikely, if not totally impossible!

Prehistoric Man Is Not Prehistoric

Could it be that “prehistoric” man was not “before history” after all? Job may have been referring to the type of people scientists call “cavemen” as he wrote:

But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock.

Yea, whereto might the strength of their hands profit me, in whom old age was perished?

For want and famine they were solitary; fleeing into the wilderness in former time desolate and waste.

Who cut up mallows by the bushes, and juniper roots for their meat.

They were driven forth from among men, (they cried after them as after a thief;)

To dwell in the cliffs of the valleys, in caves of the earth, and in the rocks.

Among the bushes they brayed; under the nettles they were gathered together.

They were children of fools, yea, children of base men: they were viler than the earth (Job 30:l-8).

Perhaps “cavemen” were cast-offs from the civilized societies of their day. Possibly these were people given over to a reprobate mind due to their habitual sin and decadence. In any event, they were not man’s ancestors. They lived concurrently with man.

The God of the Bible says He created man after His own image from the dust of the earth:

And the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7).

God formed man from dust, not from some prehistoric, apelike, hominid creature or the primordial ooze. The dust became, by God’s creative design and power, a man; but the man had no life until God breathed life into him. Genesis 2:7 clearly shows that man’s emergence from some previous living creature is not true. He came from non-living dust, which became, by God’s creative design and power, a man— a man that had no life until the living God breathed life into him. This means that man could not have evolved from some more primitive “LIVING” monkey-like creature. People were created by God in God’s own image.

Part of God’s image is our ability to think thoughts and make decisions. Our brain does not originate thoughts.

If it did, we would have to do whatever our brains decided. On the contrary, we (the real persons inside) do the thinking and deciding, and our brains take these non-physical thoughts and translate them into physical actions through a connection between the spirit and body that science can’t fathom....

Science cannot escape the fact that man himself, like his Creator, must be a nonmaterial being in order to originate the thoughts processed by the brain.82

There can be no compromise for the Christian as to the origin of man. We did not come from monkey-like creatures, but through the indescribable, unfathomable, supernatural power of the God of the Bible. He created us in His image, “unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).

The Anthropic Principle

God placed man, the pinnacle of His creation, in a special environment of delicately balanced systems. Scientists are now calling this balance of ecosystems (that support the life of man) the “Anthropic Principle.” For our lives to be maintained, we must have exactly the correct amounts of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, sunlight, magnetic field, speed of rotation and revolution of earth, distance from the moon, distance from the sun, ozone, water, gravity, etc., etc., etc. All of these factors must be in the correct amounts, in the right places, at the right times, and in exact relationships with each other.

For instance, if our earth’s gravity were weaker, our atmosphere would thin out and would be unable to support life. If gravity were stronger, undesirable gases, such as ammonia gas, would be held in higher concentrations and would be detrimental to life. That means our earth has to have been made exactly the right size to generate the perfect amount of gravity to support our atmosphere.

But the earth also had to be the right size to hold our moon in orbit—that means the moon had to be made the right size so it wouldn’t drift off into space or crash into earth—and the moon also had to be the right size so that the ocean tides stay under control. That means there had to be just the right amount of water in the oceans to harmonize with the size of the moon to establish the tidal patterns. Of course, the earth and moon must be in a precise relationship not only with each other but also with our sun, and the size of all three does not leave space for error. How many chance events would have to occur to make all these conditions (and many billions more) just EXACTLY right for man to live on this planet? This requires a lot of faith. We could go on and on with this, but the fact is, the evolution model as an explanation for this incredible universe, so carefully designed with man in mind, is grossly lacking! God, the God of the Bible, is to be praised. He, alone, is to receive the glory and the honor. “It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord, and to sing praises unto thy name, O most High” (Psalm 92:1).

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.

Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me; then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer (Psalm 19).

57 Richard E. Leakey, Human Origins, Lodestar Books (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1982), p. 20. For much information about fossil-man from a creationist perspective please read: Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 1992). Also: The Illustrated Origins Answer Book by Paul S. Taylor (Eden Productions, P.O. Box 41644 Mesa, AZ 85274-1644, 1992).

58 See The Hominid Gang: Behind the Scenes in the Search for Human Origins by Delta Willis, with an introduction by Stephen Jay Gould (New York: Viking Press, 1989), p. 24. See also: The Piltdown Man by Ronald Millar (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1972), front cover slip.

59 Percy E. Raymond, Prehistoric Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969), pp. 282, 283.

60 See The Hominid Gang, p. 22. See also W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (Regency: Nashville) Vol. 1, 1991, pp. 227,228.

61 Raymond, p. 281.

62 Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 20.

63 Christopher Janus, The Search for Peking Man (New York: MacMillan Pub. Co., Inc., 1975), p. 31.

64 Ibid., p. 30.

65 Ibid., p. 32.

66 Johanson and Edey, p. 34.

67 Marcellin Boule, Fossil Men (Dryden Press, 1957), p. 535.

68 Johanson and Edey, p. 36.

69 Raymond, p. 280.

70 “It turned out that the angle of twist between the main plane of the ilium and the ischio-pubic part of the innominate in the Australopithecine cast corresponded to that in the four-footed macaque or cercopitheque monkeys and baboons...Another dimension we have examined describes the length of the body of the ischium relative to the innominate as a whole...In this feature, Australopithecus is completely unlike man, and identical with monkeys and apes” [Sir Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Pub. Co., 1970), pp. 89,91].

71 Dr. Chas. Oxnard, “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, No. 5 (May 1979), p. 264. Also see: Fossils, Teeth and Sex — New Perspectives on Human Evolution(Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1987), p. 227.

72 Ibid., p. 273.

73 Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 240.

74 Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p.276.

75 Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, p. 269.

76 Author unknown, “Anthropological Art,” Science Digest, 89 No. 3 (April 1981), p. 44.

77 J. W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 332-336.

78 Henry M. Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig Press, 1970), p. 75.

79 Ibid., p. 76.

80 Ibid., p. 77.

81 Ibid., pp. 75, 77.

82 Dave Hunt, “The Living Word of God,” The Berean Call, P.O. Box 7019, Bend, Oregon 97708, January 2001.