mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== The True History of Mankind J H John Peet There is probably no area of greater contrast between the evolutionary theory and biblical doctrine than in the history and nature of mankind. To the evolutionist, man is the current climax of one twig of the evolutionary tree. By chance, we are here. We and our cousins, the apes, have descended from a common ancestor, such as the fossil, Lucy. From there, through various pre-human and brute forms, we have arrived, the modern sophisticated creature, distinct from the animals only in certain features. "I know of no study which is so utterly saddening as that of the evolution of humanity ... He is a brute, ony more intelligent than other brutes, a blind prey to impulses which as often as not lead him to destruction ... and fill his life with barren toil and battle." (Huxley). The biblical account is in complete contrast. Man is made separate from animals, distinct from them in his origin (he is made by the hand of God from the clay), distinct in his design (made after the image of the Triune God) and distinct in role (he is lord, under his God and accountable to Him, over the whole creation). Clearly this means that man has been intelligent and intelligible from the start. The cartoon character, Flintstone, presents an interesting picture of Stone Age man as an engineer and contemporary of the dinosaurs (in contrast to the evolutionary theory) but still little more than a callous brute. But we will need to ask questions about his cultural development and his presumed ancestors as well as his distinctiveness in order to clarify and confirm biblical history. We will begin by disposing of the evolutionary approach. Many think that the evolutionary scheme still describes man as evolving from a monkey. This is not the case. The modern apes and man are believed to have come from a common ancestor. The contrasting histories Let us consider, first of all, the chronology of the Homo species. According to Evolutionary Theory, his immediate, man-like ancestors were Homo habilus, Homo erectus, Archaic Homo sapiens, Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man. According to this conventional wisdom, Homo erectus reigned between 1.5 and 0.75 million years ago, being preceded by Homo habilus. He, if a personal pronoun is appropriate, was succeeded by a series of more truly human-like creatures, ending in Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man. All goes well for this sequence until you look away from the theory to the actual data. Lubenow has researched the literature and tabulated the evolutionist's own data. From this, he shows that Homo habilus and Homo erectus were contemporaries, as were the latter and subsequent forms such as Neanderthal Man. There could not, therefore, have been an evolutionary sequence. Further, and more disturbingly for them, Homo sapiens predated all of them! Several examples of fossil finds substantiate this claim. They were rejected as human, not on the basis of the physical evidence, but because of the estimated age of the remains which indicated (in evolutionary terms) that they must be pre-humna. In fact, accepting that, as far back as Homo erectus at least, these are all true humans, we must conclude that they may be degenerate forms of man as a result of the Fall or some other climatic or cultural cause. The Bible gives a very different picture - man was created specially and specifically by God between six and ten thousand years ago. After the Fall, which occurred in the first century after Creation, man experienced a number of changes which affected him and his environment. When Man was created, he was made lord over the rest of creation with responsibility to God to care for itbut also to enjoy it. When he sinned, part of the judgment was to spoil this environment so that it would no longer be willing subject to him, but his lordship would be faced with rebellion. This directly parallels man's relationship with his Maker. So, before the Fall, as he enjoyed his environment, he would be continually reminded of his Maker. Now, he would be continually reminded of his rebellion. The judgment is particularly expressed in terms of his physical and spiritual death. As we will note, the Flood would have resulted in further environmental changes which would have affected him. A true historical model must interpret the observational data in the light of revelationary information. For the purposes of this paper, I will not examine the dating methods used and which can be shown to be wanting. They present no serious problem to the conservative evangelical. Transitional forms? a) Ape-man/pre-humans? But what about our link with the apes? Let us look next at some of the remains that have been identified as transitional forms. The British Museum points out a key factor in the interpretation of these remains: "The material mainly consists of bone fragments and teeth, rarely complete skulls or jaws - and no complete skeletons at all." Not only is it significant that the remains are fragmentary (imagine doing a thousand piece jig-saw puzzle with 90% missing and no picture to guide you, especially if it is three-dimensional!), but the final statement should also be noted. The reason no "complete skeletons" of transitionary forms have been found is because a complete skeleton fits unambiguously with either an ape or a man! Ramapithecus was a reconstruction based on jaws and teeth alone, but was ultimately demonstrated to be from an orang-utan. Java Man was described on the basis of a skull cap and a leg bone. It turned out that these were from a gibbon and a human being respectively. 1470 Man was one of Leakey's finds based on skull fragments. A variety of reconstructions were proposed. The decision as to which to accept (assuming one is correct) is based partly on imagination and partly on where you put the lower jaw, a point apparently acknowledged by Leakey. He said that this skull was so anomalous (evolutionary-wise), that one had to throw out either the skull or the theory. Another skull was found in a hundred fragments and, needless to say, a number of different ape- like reconstructions were suggested. This was classified as Zinjanthropus bosei (popularly, "Nutcracker Man"). Peking Man was constructed from various monkey skulls to which were added a jaw found 25 m higher than them. Nebraska Man was offered as a transitional form on the basis of one tooth, actually a pig's! More recently, Australopithecus ramidus was proposed by its discoverer. In fact, he found only teeth, a piece of a jaw and a leg-bone scattered over 4-5 km. At the time, we pointed out that the evidence suggested a chimpanzee. Indeed, Twycross Zoo in Leicestershire claimed the living counterpart, Bonobo Chimpanzee, to be there, alive and well. Sometime later it was leaked out - without the same blaze of publicity that greeted its discovery - that the scientists acknowledged it to be a chimpanzee after all! It does not give us much faith in their reconstructions. Lucy is a much vaunted fossil. Don Johanson recovered 40% of the skeleton in 1974 and it was so-named because the Beatle's song, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was being played at that time. The creature was three-and-a-half feet tall with a small brain. Confusion has arisen over the means of locomotion. This is because its discoverer, Johanson, equated the remains (without scientific evidence) to similarly aged remains elsewhere and a knee joint of another creature found some distance away. Stern and Susman are convinced that the evidence supports arboreal locomotion rather than an upright bipedal creature. Similarly, the creature had long curved fingers and toes - contrary to some museum reconstructions which are based on imagination rather than scientific evidence. The pelvis was crushed and reconstructed, the basis of the reconstruction apparently being prejudice rather than evidence. Writing about his reconstruction in National Geographic (March 1996), John Gurche admits, "I wanted to get a human soul into this ape-like face, to indicate something about where he was headed." Gerald Duffett has shown that the development of man from an ape-like ancestor involves changes in systems which are highly integrated. Stepwise changes are not a viable option. b) Primitve or proto-humans? So, we have no established links with the apes. But what about those primitive human forms? Homo habilus has become a disputed taxon, widely believed to be a confusion of apes and human-kind. Among these we find creatures that used tools and pottery, built hut circles and had the ability to speak (as demonstrated by the presence of Broca's area in the skull). anonymous When we look at Homo erectus, we find that, while there are morphological distinctives, they can be adequately explained on the basis of genetic abnormalities, nutrition, anaemia and pathology amongst other features. (You will recall that I spoke of physical and cultural degeneration earlier). Archaeology shows that he used stone tools, fire, burial, used butchery and (according to a recent [1997] report) sailed the seas, etc., all features normally considered to indicate true humans. Indeed, a proposal has been made to reclassify them as Homo sapiens (New Scientist, 16th January 1993, p.34). Archaic Homo sapiens was proposed as a distinct group, but it is virtually indistinguishable from Homo erectus and was geographically, as well as chronologically, contemporary with modern man. His archaeological features are also reminiscent of Homo erectus. anonymous That Neanderthal Man has become a distinct embarrassment was shown on a recent TV programme. He lived in the same areas as modern man and, if the reconstructions are true, he was much stronger than him and so should have survived him. One worker has shown that all skull reconstructions have manipulated the jaw to favour a preconceived notion. Of particular embarassment is the fact that his brain was, on average, larger than that of modern humans. As a medical researcher, Dr. Wright, has shown, he suffered with rickets and syphilis. His distinctive morphology could be the result of a variety of factors: geographical, environmental, pathological, cultural and dietary. In fact, these factors along with his geographic location relative to the Ice Age glaciers give the clue to his degenerative condition. Undoubtedly, Dr Michael Oard, a meteorologist, has given a true picture of these men in his children's book on the Ice Age. Neanderthal Flute Archaeologically, Neanderthal man used tools and pottery, worked with skins and leather, built hearths and believed in an after life; he was a carer, left cave art and musical instruments. He also left evidence of a knowledge of pharmacy, dentistry and surgery. Cro-Magnon Man occupied southern Europe. He was well built and tall with all the attributes of modern man. Boxgrove Man has been hailed as Britain's first man. It consists of a shattered shin bone and was dated by comparison of the Sussex location with similar material in Norfolk. Even if the reconstruction is right, it has proved to be an increasing embarrassment as more has been deduced of his cultural environment. It demonstrates how early in his history man was intelligent and skilled. An article in Time manazine (1994) said, "Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone taht doesn't fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate." We concur with Mary Leakey when she commented, "All those trees of lofe with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." Man - made in the image of God How can we evaluate these creatures? How can we identify a true man? Johanson made a very pertinent comment in his book on LUCY: "It may seem rediculous for science to have been talking about humans and prehumans and protohumans for more than a century without ever nailing down what a human was. Rediculous or not, that was the situation. We do not have even today, an agreed-on definition of human-kind, a clear set of specifications that will enable any anthropologist in the world to say quickly and with confidence this one is human; that one isn't." The biblical key is clear: man is made in the image of God. He is unique in several ways. I would suggest that this is not only evident from Scripture but self-evident to the observant. To understand the reference to man being made in the image of God, we must also note that this is true of fallen man (e.g. Genesis 9:1; James 3:9) and yet it is being restored in redeemed men (2 Corinthians 3:18). A parallel form of words is used of our Lord Jesus Who is "the image of the invisible God" and also came in the "likeness of sinful man" (Romans 8:3). Obviously, He was not sinful; in the same way, we are not God. The word "image" means "impressed character". As the Perfect Man, the Lord Jesus showed not only that we should have been like but also clearly showed what God Himself is like (John 14:9; Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4). Man is not an animal, though he may have some of his physiological aspects. Mankind was created separately and distinctively from the rest of the created order. It is this concept is that which makes man distinctively human. Man's physical body is that which is suitable for the demonstration of the invisible and spiritual nature of God. God created us to reflect His nature, just as did the incarnate Christ. God demonstrates that, even through our limitations and our finiteness, He can be seen in the Perfect Man. Man is superior to all other creatures in his ability to know and love his Creator. This, says, Carl Henry, is the image of God. But, the glory of God in man has been tarnished by the Fall (Romans 3:23). We look in a shattered mirror and so do not recognize God in man except by revelation. However, that image is restored by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit as we are "changed in the same image from glory to glory" (2 Corinthians 3:18). We are metamorphosed! So, says Paul, there is a renewal of the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 3:10). We are created in righteousness and true holiness (Ephesians 4:24), so taking on a moral likeness to God. Our God is at work doing this in us now (Romans 8:28-29). God is spiritual, invisible and immortal; man has a soul which will outlive the temporal body. God's image is also displayed, even in fallen man, by his rationality, creativity, by his mastery of the environment, and in righteousness and community (to quote J.I. Packer). As the Shorter Catechism puts it, "God created man, male and female, after His own image in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, with dominion over the creatures." Man has a rational capacity that enables us to rise above sensation and pursue an intelligent purpose in life. Our belief in Creation will affect our study of man's mind, since he is made a little lower than God and far above the animal world (Psalm 8:5). We have the powers of thought, of construction, of management and of moral discernment. Man has a conscience (even if damaged and insensitive). Only man has a sense of morality - as expressed repeatedly in the media in recent days. So, we have distinct concepts of right and wrong. These things have been spoilt by sin, but "common grace" restrains this corruption. Perversion has turned self-sacrifice into self-centredness: the pure has become lust, cravings, rage, hatred, murder, envy, sloth, covetousness and the like. As we look at the Creation account, we see something of God and how this is demonstrated in man: * His planning * His working * His communication and community * His authority * His observation * His appreciation of beauty * His creativity * His lordship of nature We hold mankind in a special regard. He is special, but not divine. His life and his character are sacred. It will affect our study of man's mind, since he is made a little lower than God and far above the animal world (Psalm 8:5). We will love our fellow man and seek to do him good, especially his salvation. There will be no second-class citizens. We will not destroy (emotionally or physically) the weak, but we will seek to encourage the lazy to work. We will provide for and seek to enable the handicapped to live a full life. Evolution devalues (by principle at least) the worth of those that hinder its progress such as "the senile, the imbecile, the hardened criminal, the psychopath, the chronically sick or the starving" (J. Stott, quoted by R. Dowling). I have used the term "man" in the generic sense and mean it to include, of course, woman. Though the Bible speaks of our distinctives, it also emphasises that we are both made in the image of God. God made the man initially, but that man included male and the female who was drawn from him to complement and communicate with him. The male is to be God-like towards his wife in his care and self-sacrifice (Ephesians 5:25) and the woman is to be God-like towards her husband in her role as helper ('azer, a word used for God Himself). The uniqueness of man In the light of this, we can move on and look at how the uniqueness of man is displayed in fact. The posture of man is an obvious feature. We can draw attention to those features that mark him out from the ape in this area. It is not just a matter of "straightening the ape's back" - the limbs have the wrong relative lengths, the hip joint is different, the orientation of the skull on the spine is different. This latter point is apparently very significant in the physical ability of man to speak. Indeed, the skulls are of different shape and, if we straightened the ape's back, the head would be orientated in the wrong way: he would look skyward instead of forward! In fact, we can see something of the implications of this by considering man's unique thumb. This is critical, for example, to his creativity, but it prevents man from walking on all fours - the hand is not appropriately designed for this. Being bipedal, it means that his feet must be designed to take all of his weight (and so has a larger surface area in contact with the ground than does the quadruped) and his hip joint must be relocated to enable him to maintain his balance. This need of balance is reinforced by the inner ear labyrinth in man. The canal is filed with a liquid and lined with fine hairs. As we move, the liquid triggers the hairs and so they produce signals to control our balance. This system is much less complex in apes and there is no trace of an intermediate system in the fossil record. Further, his skull has been relocated to enable him to look forwards. His eyes have moved downwards and closer together to give him 3D vision. This allows room for a greater brain capacity. Compared to a quadruped, he is more likely to trip and fall, so he has been given a small chin so that he can look where he is going. This means that he has a smaller jaw and so fewer teeth. These are used only for eating and not for grooming. The dental arrangement is now in the shape of a letter C, making the palate more dome-shaped, an accoustically ideal configuration. Without a projecting muzzle to protect his eyes in the case of facial impact, the eyes need to be held in deep sockets. Besides being an instrument for breathing, the nose acts as a shock absorber! All this so that we can have a special thumb! But man is more than a body. He is unique in his creativity. This affects his physical attributes (technology - designs, constructs and uses tools; designs and builds complex structures), his mental capacities (to conceive and appreciate beauty) and his emotional attitudes (giving rise to music, art, literature, etc.). He communicates, like his Maker. This is demonstrated in many ways: body language and speech, laughter, song and poetry. We not only have the concept of language (in all its complexity), given us from the time of Creation, but we can increase our vocabulary or even invent new languages. Modern research has confounded the evolutionary model: ancient languages were not simplistic, but more complex than modern ones. Research has come to a stumbling block established at Babel, though it has failed to recognize the cause: the main language groups can be reduced to two or three distinct sources but with no common origin. This communication skill is reflected, of course, in his sense of community. He has a unique sense of family relationships and loyalty which span distance and time. Of man's intelligence, Darwin and Johnson have both recognized a logical absurdity in the evolutionary position. "Can the mind of man, which has ... developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?" (C Darwin) "A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced that theory." (P E Johnson) Prof. Chomsky has pointed out that the origin of the mind is a complete mystery. We can engage in complex arguments, mathematical reasoning, philosophical discussions and lateral thinking, but they are only meaningful in a creationist context. I am reminded of a report that a blind mathematician was able to solve the problem of turning a sphere inside out! Finally in considering man's uniqueness, we are struck by man's sense of morality. Where did it come from? This is, as Huxley expressed it, a high mountain top rising above the rest of the created order. Remove the concept of morality and how would we live? Man alone has the capacity to worship. He has an appreciation of good and evil. He has a conscience and a sense of guilt and blame. He recognises ethical responsibility and has a respect for life. His morality is able to overcome environmental circumstances. He appreciates beauty. "... In the physical realm, any theory of human evolution must explain how it was that an ape-like ancestor, equipped with powerful jaws and long, dagger-like canine teeth and able to run at speed on four limbs, became transformed into a slow, bipedal animal whose natural means of defnse were at best puny. Add to this the powers of intellect, speech and morality, upon which we 'stand raised as upon a mountain top' as Huxley put it; and one has the complete challenge to evolutionary theory." (R Lewin). Man's uniqueness is also recognized by Richard Leakey. He notes how our development differs markedly from that of an ape. Some biological issues Before I move to a biblical summary of man's history, let me deal with some biological issues that often arise. At one time (and often in current educational literature), we were told that are "vestigial organs" in man. Time does not permit us to examine them one by one (as up to 180 were listed at one stage), but we can state with authority that none are so identified today. All have been found to be functional, just as the Bible-believer would anticipate. The converse evolutionary belief hindered scientific research and led to bad medical practice. Prof. Richard Dawkins makes much of recent work on the human eye which he believes overcomes Darwin's perplexities. He points to a computer program (!) which demonstrates that a triple layered, planar eye can, through a couple of thousand mutations, adopt a shape similar to that of the modern human eye. But, where's the evidence that this ever happened? (A fatal mutation could destroy the whole process anyway. In fact, we know that the cell is conservative to genetic changes, eliminating them (whether "good" or "bad") where possible). But, this model starts with the key photosensitive layer. And, what about the brain functions essential to the interpretation of the visual image? There would be no point to a mutational change in the eye unless it is accompanied by the necessary neural and mental processes to utilize the information perceived by the eye. And, what about the unique properties of auto-focusing, auto-response to light intensity and the compensation for movement? Further, we note that the computer simulated mutations are not random but are programmed. In another breath, Dawkins triumphantly proclaims that the eye is wired incorrectly and so has a blind spot. According to him, the octopus got it right. A funny evolutionary process! But it is not wrong, of course. We do not suffer because of this blind spot - it is well-compensated for. Rather, the inverse wiring protects us against damaging UV radiation. (For the octopus, this is filtered out by the sea water surrounding it). The blood supply to the eye feeds a layer of cells that are necessary for the regeneration of the photosensitive chemicals in the light detectors. If the wiring were the opposite way round, this blood supply would be between the detectors and the light source and we then would not be able to see because the blood supply would prevent the passage of light (as in a person suffering from a blood haemorrhage in the eye). We could say much more about the design of the human eye, but let us note that, whereas the very high resolution computer screen has about a quarter of a million pixels that respond independently to light signals, our retina has about two hundred million! Further, it has been estimated that, when we enter a room, the information received by the eye and processed by the brain is equivalent to that handled by twelve super-computers. A lot of work has been reported in the literature on genetic research that points to an "African Eve" and, similarly, to a unique man from whom the whole human race descended. The work is based on the transfer of mitochondrial DNA through the female line and the Y-chromosome through man. By comparing the genetic make-up of modern races from around the world, the geneticists conclude that we must have had common parents in Africa between one and two hundred thousand years ago. (This assumes a rate of mutation which is based on evolutionary principles). Though of interest biblically, we should note that the work is under challenge because of its methodology. It is also rejected by some because it makes our forebears too recent! In a biblical context, we should note that the African origin cannot be conclusive (who knows the first "man" was there, he may have migrated there), but then nor do we know the location of Eden! Some are concerned as to how we can explain racial characteristics. Evolutionists would generally agree with creationists that racial distinctions are recent and can arise in just, say, five generations or less. We believe that God created in Adam all the genetic potential for the whole human race. (In fact, each one of us has sufficient genetic information to produce more off-spring than the world population without necessarily producing identical offspring). Adam's skin colour was probably brown due to an equal mix of genes producing a high or low density of melanin (and hence black or white skin). His offspring could be anything from black- to white-skinned depending on which half of his and Eve's genes were passed on to their children. This has a similar effect in, for example, eye colour, hair colour and other genetic variations. As an illustration of this effect, one batch of eggs from an African moth generated three distinctive caterpillars; another year a fourth variety was obtained. It has similarly been found that parents of mixed colour can produce children, even twins, of different skin colour. It has also been recorded that white-skinned parents have produced a dark-skinned child, as a result of a dark gene carried down through several generations. Stone Age culture Because of the evolutionary scenario, many believe that Old Stone Age man was little more than a grunting brute lacking in civilized behaviour and cultural taste. New Stone Age man marks a big step forward but is conceived as below modern Homo sapiens in culture. This clearly conflicts with the biblical picture in which the first city was built in the third generation, metallurgy and musical instrumentation following shortly afterwards. It also conflicts with observations on modern isolated "Stone Age" groups. In fact, when we look at the evidence, it is consistent with the biblical revelation, as we would expect. Palaeolithic Man lived in constructed homes, not just in caves (not that cave-dwelling implies inferiority of mind or culture). He was a part of small, mobile, social units. He was very efficient in the production and use of stone tools and harpooned fish like a modern Eskimo. Many cave paintings were left by him, as were musical instruments. Apparently he believed in an after- life, as demonstrated by his ritualistic burials. He was modern, too, in that he suffered from such diseases as rickets and arthritis. Neolithic man originated in Mesopotamia and is characterised by the building of megaliths. He possessed advanced technological abilities as demonstrated by his mining and engineering activities. When we study his legacy to us, we are conscious of his capacity for sophisticated thought in engineering design, astronomy, communication and numeracy. He also had a complex social structure involving designers and architects, surveyors and builders, for example. A dramatic demonstration of the culturally advanced state of Stone Age people was given in September 1991. Two walkers in the snow- and ice-covered Alps on the Austrian/Italian border observed the appearance of a skull in the melting ice. Subsequent excavation showed him to be a Neolithic man mummified in the ice following an accident. Remarkably they were able to reconstruct his appearance and his clothing and equipment. He was well-dressed with animal skins beautifully stitched together. He was equipped with a flint knife and a bronze axe! The latter should not - according to normal historical theory, have appeared until the later Bronze Age. Besides his archery equipment, he carried a fire-lighting kit. Also, he appeared to be carrying a basic medical kit with fungi suitable for antibiotic treatment. There is little reason to believe that we would notice much difference between him and ourselves if we passed him on the Alps today. A Biblical view of Man's history But, as interesting as these issues are, let us return to the Bible for our final understanding of man's origins and early history. The true history of man is that he was created completely and perfectly human by God and this was a miraculous act, not the result of biological change. He was an intelligent, reasoning creature with a compete language. He was in a position of authority over the rest of the created order and was a working being. After his rebellion against his Creator, man retained many of the features that marked him as being in the image of God, but was now subject to new forces which made work into toil, which frustrated his lordship and brought a finiteness to his life. As the climax of Creation, man was presented with a world prepared for him. Daily the world would have caused him to admire and worship his Maker. Now, because of his sin, the world rebelled against his lordship and reminded him daily of his own rebellion against God. Genesis records the early origin of construction, music and metallurgy. Sin increased from the day of his ejection from Eden until God judged the whole world again in the Flood. From Noah's family, He repopulated the earth. But, from the record, we learn that this was a very different world: a reduced life-span, a changed diet and climate. We cannot discuss the details of the Flood here, but I believe that the judgment was rapid and devastating. In a day, probably, man and animal life was annihilated. After the Flood, the world would have suffered a climatic and geological instability as mountains rose, continents rifted and seas transgressed the continental plains. The Ice Age arrived, covering much of the northern hemisphere. This would have been a natural consequence of the Flood and orogeny (mountain-building processes). The fountains of the deep would have warmed the seas (so increasing precipitation) and the volcanic eruptions would have thrown up dust clouds that would have cut out the sunlight and generated continual winters. The consequence would have been poor environmental conditions in, for example, the Neander Valley in Germany, so resulting in poor food resources for Neanderthal Man, hence his deformities due to vitamin deficiency. After the Flood, and as the plain of Shinar dried out, Noah moved from Ararat to it from the east. After Babel, he was dispersed across the world. Arriving in new areas, he would be effectively in "desert island" conditions, living intitially in caves until he could build his homes. It is likely that man from the time of the Flood to Babel is represented by the Pal'olithic man of archaeology and post-Babel man corresponds to Neolithic man. Evolution predicts man's cultural development over long periods of time from an animal until to the Neolithic revolution. The Bible says that he was always on a higher plane than the animals. After the Flood, his culture probably was temporarily lower than pre-Flood man - not because of his inferiority, but because of the need to produce again the technology of which he was aware. (Remember, Noah built the Ark!) We, today, would be in the same position under the same isolated conditions. There have been cultural advances but there have also been declines. Man, however, is essentially the same. Conclusions Prof. David Pilbeam, an anthropologist, said that: "... the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about the past. Palaeoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about. But that is heresy." Aldous Huxley made it plain as to why he believed in evolution: "The philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation ... from a certain system of morality." The creationist message is one of purpose. The way we answer the question, "Where did we come from?" will determine how we answer the question, "Where are we going?" As we conclude, we would note two things: Firstly, the only missing link for man is not Lucy, but Christ. God sent Him to bring us back to Himself after Whom and by Whom we were made. Secondly, our closest relative is not the ape, but God. Encourage your hearts daily with that truth! Now, why not visit these other pages ...? The BCS Homepage