Why couldn't God have used evolution to create man?

There are two ways to answer this question.  First, the Bible does not allow for such a scenario.  It is impossible to fit evolution into the creation of man without adding to or subtracting from the Bible.  This is a very serious thing.  Second, there is no proof for evolution in science, specifically in paleoanthropology (the study of fossil humans).  In previous columns I have addressed the problems with the Homo habilis classification, Neandertals and the Australopithecines, including the famous Lucy.  Therefore, before I concentrate on the serious Biblical consequences of your question I want to complete my discussion of problems in paleoanthropology.  Of course, there is much more that can and needs to be said to expose the lie of ape-men, but I will only deal with two popular lies that deceived the public over the last century: Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man.

The Holy Grail for evolutionists is a missing link between man and apes.  Since man was created in the image and likeness of God and not of apes these missing links will always be missing.   The stories of these two ape-men illustrate how a desire to want to find something in the fossil record has led to a lack of objectivity on the part of paleoanthropologists.  They further illustrate how those in this field of science are not able to speak with the same authority as other sciences.  (Of course it is not just the frauds the expose the weaknesses of human evolution but the legitimate finds that I discussed in earlier columns.)

In the early 1900's England, the birthplace of Charles Darwin, desperately desired to have an ape-man of their own. Between 1908 and 1912 forty miles south of London in a gravel pit in the tiny hamlet of Piltdown, England Charles Dawson (a lawyer and amateur fossil hunter) discovered what became known as "Piltdown Man."  For over forty years this discovery was heralded as a human ancestor and over fifty doctoral theses were written about him.  However, in 1953 it was revealed to be a complete fraud, a hoax.  Who it was that was actually responsible for the hoax is uncertain.   There are many suspects but interestingly, none other than Sir Arthur Canon Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes is one.  He was trained as a medical doctor and lived very near the Piltdown gravel pits.  Whoever was really responsible placed a human skullcap to the jaw of an orangutan.  The jaw was filed down to match the skull and even stained to make it look like it fit and make it look aged.  Of course, since paleoanthropologists rarely saw the actual bones of Piltdown man you can hardly blame them for their conclusions.  Just like today, castings were used to study the find and the actual bones were locked safely away.

In 1922 geologist Harold Cook found a single molar tooth in Nebraska which became know as Hesperopithecus haroldcooki or "Nebraska man."  An imaginative drawing of Mr. and Mrs. Nebraska Man appeared in the Illustrated London News, which had worldwide distribution.  This image of a genuine missing link was firmly fixed in the minds of Americans just in time for the Scopes trial.  With much less fanfare, however, in 1928 it was discovered that a mistake had been made.  The tooth was not that of an early human, but that of a pig or a peccary.  I have heard it said, "They tried to make a monkey out of a pig, but the pig made a monkey out of them."

 Certainly then, with such "skeletons in the closet" scientists today are more cautious about making such extravagant claims.  Obviously, it is not possible to be deceived by a hoax today.  This kind of reasoning is absolutely wrong.  Scientists will always make mistakes and especially when evolution is involved.  Belief in this failed model of origin has tainted an entire field of science.  As recently as November 1999 National Geographic promoted yet another hoax, Archeoraptor liaoningensis.  A ten page, full color, illustrated description of this lie contained the claim "it's a missing link."  In just two months the slab in which it was found was discovered to be from different sources.  Quietly, months later National Geographic admitted the error in a pictureless column tucked away at the end of the magazine.

I infer from your question that you've made the assumption that science has proved evolution.  Hopefully these examples show how fallible the science is behind the idea of human evolution.  Again, the more serious problem with believing God created with evolution is the Biblical implication.  Such a belief attacks the dignity of man and the character of God in whose image and likeness man was created.  Therefore, I will address this later.

Page 64

Previous Article   Table of Contents    Next Article

Home Page

Perhaps you could get my column in your local paper, too! Have your newspaper editor contact me. Also, feel free to email me with any of your questions, comments or disagreements.

ŠTom Carpenter
Originally published in the Rockdale/Newton Citizen