Books

Facts and Fallacies of the Fossil Record:
Re-Evaluating the Supposed Evidences for Human Evolution

By Brett A. Rutherford

Lesson One

Introduction

I have often been asked the question, “When did life on earth begin?” Of course, there are a number of answers one may have heard in response to this query. The evolutionists will emphatically state that life on this planet began about five hundred seventy million years ago. They will also try to persuade you that the earth is much older than its first signs of life. They believe the earth to be approximately 4.6 billion years old.

Obviously, the conservative theologian who believes that the Genesis record of creation is a literal, historical account will seek to convince you that the earth is much younger than the proposed age assigned to it by the evolutionists. They believe the earth is only slightly older than the first life on it. In fact, according to the Genesis account of creation, the earth is only a couple of days older than the appearance of first life. Although conservative theologians, or creationists, believe wholeheartedly that the earth, and life on it, were created in six literal days, they do disagree on how long ago those events occurred.

In many Bible margins you will often find the creation of the world assigned a date of 4004 B.C. This is based on the 350 year-old calculations of the Irish Archbishop Ussher. He reached his date by using genealogical figures in the Bible.¹ Unfortunately, Ussher made the incorrect assumption that the genealogical record does not contain gaps. Although it is the case that an exact figure can be determined from the creation to the flood through the lineages, it is difficult to determine an exact time frame for events that occurred in the post-diluvium world because there are generational gaps in the Biblical record.

One must understand that the Jews did not consider it necessary to know the names of every single individual in a given lineage. Throughout the Bible one will discover that only the mention of prominent descendants was necessary for a Jew to be able to establish his rights. We have to look no further than the case of Christ’s lineage in Matthew, chapter one. In verse three, Hezron is mentioned only four generations before Nashon. However, these men lived well over four hundred years apart. Hezron is mentioned in Genesis 46 while Nashon is mentioned in Numbers chapter one.² Obviously, there are quite a few transitional figures in this lineage whose names and ages are not given. One has no guarantee that this principle of generation jumping is not commonplace throughout the record. The purpose of the Bible is not to provide its reader with every single family detail of the ancestors of Christ. Its purpose is to show that Christ was who He claimed to be. Listing every generation is not necessary in order to accomplish this.

Many other Bible scholars have repeated Ussher’s mistake. In the nineteenth century, Hales arrived at a date of 5411 B.C. for the creation of the world. He used the patriarchal ages given in the Septuagint to calculate the age of the earth.³ One will find that many others, even now, try in vain to use the genealogical records of the Bible to formulate an exact date for the foundation of the world. However, the Bible was never intended to be used as such. It is true that the sum of historical material in the Bible indicates that the earth is very young. However, to use the genealogical data to arrive at an exact date is not possible!

One also cannot rely upon the evolutionists’ figures for the beginning of the earth and life on it because their dates come from unreliable sources as will be shown in this book. If the evolutionists are incorrect, and the creationists cannot agree, then when did this earth come into being, and when did life on it begin? I do not believe that an exact answer can be given to this question. Even though the facts presented in this book will give the reader a rough idea, the primary purpose of this book is not to affix an age to the earth. The objective of this work is to address a problem which students of our public school system continually have to face. I refer to the problem of the debate over human origins.

In my third year at the University of Memphis I made the decision to major in archaeology. Initially, I did not realize that I was entering a field of uncertain classification. Archaeology is often found to be a field without a home. At some institutions, archaeology is considered a subdivision of art history. Other universities consider archaeology an integral part of anthropology. At any given school one may even find archaeologically related courses offered by the departments of geology, language, history, and even biology. The reason for this confusion is that archaeology borrows from all of these disciplines and even more. The whim of the university often determines under which department archaeology will be classified. Fortunately, many institutions have now given the field of archaeology its own department. However, when I attended the University of Memphis the discipline was primarily housed under the auspices of the anthropology department. The justification for this placement relates to archaeology as the study of static (dead) culture. This consideration was a perfect fit for anthropological studies which, in general, encompasses the study of culture, both living and dead. Therefore, my desire to study archaeology resulted in my becoming an anthropology major.

Unfortunately, a course called “Human Origins and Variations” was required of all anthropology majors. As the reader may have already guessed, this study focused on supposed evidences for human evolution. On the first day of this class, the professor rolled in a cart load of various skulls. Before uttering a word he placed all the skulls in a specific order. All eyes in the room were fixed on that row of craniums. When the instructor knew he had our undivided attention, he then revealed to us that the skulls before us represented human morphology. Admittedly, I found it to be a very impressive display. However, I was convinced that the so called “evidence” for human evolution before me would not be so convincing once I understood more about how these fossils were obtained and if reasonable conclusions had been drawn from this fossilized record. My suspicions were confirmed when twenty minutes into that first class the professor realized that he had confused the department’s chimpanzee skull with the cranium of the supposed first stage of human evolution.

Unfortunately, my healthy skepticism was uncommon among my classmates who were hanging on every word of that instructor. It is so sad to see so many young people drawn into the web of lies evolutionists weave. Even young men and women who have grown up being taught that God created the earth in six literal days give up this teaching when they are presented with what the evolutionists tell them is unshakable evidence for human morphology. Some young people who want to hang on to what they have been taught in Bible school, and yet also want to embrace what appears to be overwhelming fossil evidence for evolution, turn to a third explanation for human origins.

This view combines elements of the evolutionary theory and the creationist position. This approach to human origins suggests that a supernatural Being (God) set the evolutionary process into motion. In other words, God created the primeval ooze from which man evolved. They also believe that God guided man’s mutation until he appeared in his current state. Those who adhere to this latter view are commonly known as “theistic evolutionists.” The dilemma faced by those who hold to this latter view is that it is fundamentally anti-biblical.

The Dangers of Evolution

From 1788 to 1900 almost 200,000 Australian Aborigines were slaughtered by white European settlers. In order to justify the attempted genocide of Australia’s native people, many of the settlers turned to Darwin’s newly formulated theory of evolution. His theory inferred that not all creatures who appeared to be men evolved equally. Therefore, the Aborigines who lived in a relatively primitive state were thought to be creatures who had not reached the heights of biological sophistication and intelligence which the Europeans enjoyed. In other words, to many white settlers the Aborigines were a kind of subhuman troglodyte. Consequently, to kill an Aborigine was not the same as killing a European. To these early settlers of Australia, for one to kill an Aborigine was an act just slightly more heinous than for one to kill a koala.⁴ This is just one example among many in history when bigots used the implications of evolution to justify an attack on a particular people. The word of God by contrast teaches that all men are created equal.

Recently, two renowned psychologists wrote a book in which they very clearly stated that the act of rape is an expression of man’s instinct to ensure that his genes are passed on to the next generation. Therefore, the act of rape should not necessarily be considered a criminal act. These psychologists turned to Darwin’s theory of natural selection to justify their view. The theory of natural selection will be defined and discussed in the next lesson.

From the two examples that I have given it is obvious to any reasonable thinking person that evolution is an evil plague infecting our society. It is essential that all Christians understand this evil theory and are able to present logical, fact-filled arguments to disprove this ungodly notion of natural morphology. This is one of the reasons I compiled this information.

I also wrote this book so that young people do not have to feel that they must give up their faith in light of the so-called evidence for human evolution. In fact, it will be shown that evolutionists, or paleoanthropologists (those who study these fossils), have built their theory, not on a reasonable interpretation of the fossil record, but upon wild speculation and creative imagination. In the words of renowned evolutionist, Roger Lewin, “paleoanthropology is a science often short on data and long on opinion.”⁵

Review Questions

1. Is it possible to determine the exact age of the earth?

2. According to the evolutionists, when did life on earth begin?

3. The evolutionists believe the earth is how old?

4. According to Archbishop Ussher, how old is the earth?

5. According to Hales, how old is the earth?

6. Give an example of a possible generational gap in the Biblical record.

7. Was it necessary to list every generation in order to prove that Jesus is the Messiah?

8. What do archaeologists study?

9. What is the name of the theory that attempts to combine elements of evolutionary thought with the creationist position?

10. What do paleoanthropologists study?

11. European settlers in Australia used the theory of evolution to justify the extermination of which people?

12. How did evolutionist Roger Lewin describe the field of paleoanthropology?