Tags

, , ,

Adam Benton from EvoAnth has published an interesting paper where he tries to understand why Young Earth Creationists are consistently ignorant of other fossil hominids. To help answer his question, he analyzed how three prominent creationist websites are represent the hominin fossil record. Benton searched for mentions of five other hominid species that are just as important as Lucy and ideally should be represented just as in-depth. The results of his study are shown in the table below. It shows how many times these websites refer each of the fossils under consideration. You can clearly see the bias they represent.

Ta b l e 1. The number of pages from the ICR, AiG, and CMI websites discussing each of the  fossils under consideration.

Ta b l e 1. The number of pages from the ICR, AiG, and CMI websites discussing each of the fossils under consideration.

His conclusions:

It is apparent that Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Creation Ministries International (CMI) are presenting a distorted view of human evolution, glossing over critical fossils and creating the false impression that there is little evidence for human evolution. In fact, the evidence is voluminous.

I do not mean to argue that this distortion is intentional deception; writers at these organizations may simply be unaware of the vast majority of paleoanthropological literature, or perhaps prefer to discuss Lucy, as it is the example with which they are most familiar.

Regardless of the ultimate cause, the end result is clear: people who rely on AiG, CMI, and/ or the ICR for information on human evolution will wind up woefully underestimating the hominin fossil record.

About these ads