Email Exchange Between Dr. Fuz Rana and Dr. Carl Wieland

As a result of Drs. Wieland and Sarfati's (AIG representatives) web article ("Ethiopian 'earliest humans' find") on RTB's view of human origins, the following email exchange took place.  This was meant to be largely a private exchange.  However, Dr. Wieland's reply to my email was posted on the AIG website without posting my initial and follow-up emails to him.  Below is the email exchange in its entirety.

June 23, 2003

Original email sent to Drs. Wieland and Sarfati via Mark Looy:

Please forward this to Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati:

Drs. Wieland and Sarfati,

As vice president of science apologetics at Reasons to Believe (although I do believe that Dr. Sarfati has derisively referred to me as Hugh Ross' minion), I respectfully request that you either withdraw or significantly revise the article you wrote and posted on the Answers in Genesis web site titled, "Ethiopian 'earliest humans' find". The article is dated June 12, 2003.  Your piece contains factual errors and distortions about our ministry's position on several issues, including anthropology.

I write this letter to you as your brother in Christ and in accordance with the command of our Lord Jesus Christ who instructs us in Matthew 18:15 to go to your brother if he sins against you and show him his fault.  My hope is that you will listen and that you will be won over.

  • First you state that "they (Reasons to Believe) claim to be 'conservative evangelicals who trust the Bible'" and "they hold to a separate creation of Adam, and claim to take the genealogies literally."  This is true. We are conservative evangelicals who take the Bible literally.  However, your tone, the quote marks ('  '), and the use of the word "claim" implies that we are disingenuous in our views about the Bible.  I find this deeply offensive, since this implies that we are lying about our views.  To support your case you  state that we: 1) trust man's fallible dating methods; 2) reinterpret the plain teachings of the Bible; 3) accept death before the Fall;  and 4) take liberties with the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.  As you well know, there are many conservative evangelical Christians who labor long and hard for the faith and who interpret (as opposed to reinterpret) the days in Genesis as long periods of time. They also recognize the scientific validity of dating methods, they believe that the Bible teaches that animal death occurred before the Fall and they understand that there are gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.  These men and women are not compromisers (as you so often declare), but are sincere seekers of the truth, as are we.  Our views on these issues are not heretical and not unique to us, but are squarely within the pale of orthodoxy.  To be fair, your article should point this out.  It is a clear distortion to state that because we hold to these positions we merely claim to be 'conservative evangelicals who trust the Bible.'  We, indeed, are conservative evangelical Christians, and we do regard the Bible to be the error-free Word of God as do others who hold similar views.
     
  • In the article's subhead, you state that the discovery of the Ethiopian fossils represents "a severe blow to the beliefs of Hugh Ross…".  Elsewhere you state that these finds should be "received with dismay by the 'progressive creationist' camp." You also maintain that Reasons to Believe is "forced into some very tortuous positions regarding 'fossil men.'"  This couldn't be further from the truth.  We are able to readily accommodate these finds within our biblical anthropology.  In fact, this discovery actually affirms a recent origin of humanity well under 150,000 years ago, a fact that adds support to our biblical model of humanity's origin. For details listen to our June 17th edition of Creation Update (accessed through our web site or oneplace.com).  Perhaps before publishing your article you should have waited for our comments on these finds.
     
  • Equally disturbing to me is the impression you give in your article that we are ignoring the scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community as we interpret the fossil record in light of our biblical model for human origins.  You state, "despite evidence of humanity from culture, artifacts, etc. in the case of such fossils as Neandertals, Homo erectus, and even some fossils classified as ('archaic') Homo sapiens, they cannot concede these are human, because otherwise their date for 'Adam' suffers…they have been forced to postulate that these were non-human, 'spiritless humanoids' who just happened to use fire, tools, paint on cave wall…") This is blatantly untrue.  It is not our exclusive view that Neanderthals, Homo erectus, and other 'archaic' Homo sapiens were not human, it is the scientific consensus based on the evidence (anatomical, genetic and developmental) at hand. Moreover, the scientific community is unanimously agreed that these hominids behaved in ways that were clearly nonhuman.  Anyone even remotely familiar with the scientific literature knows this to be the case. (Check our Creation Update show notes for an abundance of references to the original literature.) This includes Homo sapiens idaltu, the species represented in the Ethiopian finds.  It is clear from the Nature articles that Tim White's team does not consider idaltu to be an anatomically modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens), but something else.  The data presented in Nature clearly indicates that the fossil specimens contain numerous features that lie outside the range for anatomically modern humans. (In fact, Daniel Lieberman's group published a paper a couple of years ago in PNAS that showed archaic humans are anatomically distinct from modern humans.)  Moreover, their behavior was not like that of modern humans as evidenced by the archeological finds affiliated with the fossil specimens (Middle Stone Age and Achuelen).  The fact that Tim White's team assigned the Ethiopian specimens to a separate taxon from Homo sapiens sapiens means that they are not anatomically modern humans.  Tim White's team interprets their find from an evolutionary perspective as an intermediate to modern humans because they possess a mosaic of modern and archaic (nonmodern) features.  We disagree with this conclusion.  From our perspective, a mosaic of features doesn't make it a transitional form, but rather equally reflects a Creator's work (based on reasoning similar to that used by Kurt Wise in The Creation Hypothesis).  Our interpretation is fully consistent with the evidence at hand and nicely fits within our model's framework.  Homo sapiens idaltu was a nonhuman bipedal primate that is anatomically distinct from modern humans and behaviorally distinct as well.  To imply otherwise, as your article does, is a gross distortion of the scientific evidence.

There are numerous comments in your article that suggests to me that you are confused by the terminology used by anthropologists. I point these errors out to you for your benefit and also because this confusion, I think, in large part, leads to many of the scientific errors you make in your article and consequently to the ways that you distort our position on human origins.

  • You do not seem to be aware that the term Homo sapiens is largely ambiguous.  However, in spite of the ambiguity surrounding this term, it is never used to refer exclusively to anatomically modern humans.  That reference is reserved for the term Homo sapiens sapiens.  (We consider Homo sapiens sapiens to be the descendents of Adam and Eve.)  The term Homo sapiens refers to the assemblage of hominids that existed between roughly 500,000 years ago (after Homo erectus went extinct) through modern humans.  Some anthropologists classify these as Homo sapiens, and others subdivide them into separate species, such as Homo antecessor, Homo hedeilbergensis, Homo helmi, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, etc.  Some even create subspecies categories for some of them, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis for example. Debate rages among evolutionary biologists as to how to classify these hominids and how they relate to one another, but one point of agreement is that none of them are modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens).  I again refer you to Daniel Lieberman's PNAS paper.  In this context, it is quite significant that Tim White's team classified the Ethiopian finds as a subspecies of Homo sapiens.  This means that they are not modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) but a distinct hominid.  For more details on this you can consult almost any introductory book on paleoanthropology.
     
  • You also seem to be confused about the different "cultures," "industries," "tools," and "technologies" found in the fossil/archeological record.  You seem to confuse the scientific use of these words with the common use.  The culture/technology/industry of Homo habilis / Australopithecus habilis (Oldowan) consists of extremely crude stone implements that are simply rocks flaked to a point.  These animals likely used the flakes as well as the so-called hand axes.  The culture/technology/industry of Homo erectus (Acheulean) is not much more sophisticated than that used by H. habilis.  The next culture/technology/industry is called Middle Stone Age or Mousterian (depending on whether the artifacts are recovered in Africa or Europe).  These "tools' are only slightly more advanced than those used by H. erectus.  In your article you try to argue that Homo sapiens idaltu must have been a modern human because they used "an interesting combination of Middle Stone Age and late Acheulean technology."  This statement makes no sense.  It essentially says that these hominids must have been modern humans because they behaved in nonhuman ways.  Only when modern humans appear (Homo sapiens sapiens) does the culture/technology/industry display any sophistication.  According the Christopher Stringer in his book African Exodus, "Before then, Homo sapiens [not modern humans] was simply marking time culturally. For millennia upon millennia, [they] had been churning out the same forms of stone utensils…But about 40,000 years ago, a perceptible shift in [the] handiwork took place…tool kits leapt in sophistication…Signs of the use of ropes, bone spear points, fishhooks, and harpoons emerge, along with the sudden manifestation of sculptures, paintings and musical instruments…We also find evidence for the first long-distance exchange of stones and beads…Its an extraordinary catalogue of achievements that seem to have come from nowhere…"  For more information on this see Richard Klein's classic textbook, The Human Career.  The scientific evidence abundantly demonstrates that prior to the appearance of modern humans the tool use was crude and stagnant.  Only when modern humans appear does the tool use become advanced, in a dramatic fashion.

In light of these comments, I again ask that you either withdraw or revise your article.  I do not object to you offering critique of our views, but your critique should be based on a proper representation of our views in the context of conservative evangelicalism.  Also, you should properly understand the scientific evidence you use when you critique our model(s).  Given that you both are men of high Christian character and integrity, I have full confidence that you will correct these errors in your article.

Fazale (Fuz) Rana, Ph.D.
Vice President, Science Apologetics
Reasons To Believe

June 25, 2003

Here is Dr. Wieland's reply, edited to remove 'sensitive' items deleted by AIG prior to their July 4, 2003 post.

June 25, 2003

Email response to Dr. Wieland's reply:

Dear Dr. Wieland,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my email. While neither of us has time to engage in a protracted email exchange, I feel compelled to address several points in your reply.  So please bear with me.

  • My intent was to follow the spirit of our Lord's command in Matthew 18.  While I did not contact you by email prior to our Creation Update broadcast, I still felt that this passage applied.  Our broadcast's purpose was not to respond to AIG's critique, but to comment on the recent discovery of these Ethiopian specimens in a timely fashion.  Our comments on the AIG piece were quite brief.  However, if you feel that you have good reasons to reject the clear teaching of Matthew 18 in this instance, so be it.
     
  • You insist that there are no significant anatomical differences between Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans).  I have gone back and re-read the Nature articles in detail and could not disagree with you more.  The authors of these papers readily acknowledge that they are not anatomically modern humans.  In the abstract of one of the papers they state, "The Herto hominids are morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans." (Nature 423 (2003), 742-747)  In this article, the authors state, "The Herto hominids are contemporaneous with obvious antecedents of 'classic' Neanderthals, but do not resemble them.  The Herto hominids have derived characters not seen in Homo erectus and in other apparently older African specimens…and so cannot be assigned to those groups.  When BOU-VP-16/1 is compared metrically with a large global sample of modern human crania similarities and differences are apparent."  Elsewhere they state, "The morphology of the Herto crania falls between the more primitive morphology of the earlier African specimens…and the more derived morphology of later AMHS…"  They also state, "They sample a population that is on the verge of anatomical modernity but not yet fully modern."  Again, the authors state, "Because the Herto hominids are morphologically just beyond the range of variation seen in AMHS, and because they differ from all other known fossil hominids, we recognize them here as Homo sapiens idaltu, a new paleosubspecies of Homo sapiens."  These hominids differ from Homo sapiens sapiens by greater craniofacial robusticity, greater anterior-posterior length, and large glenoid-to-occlusal plane distance.  Clearly, Tim White's team is viewing the data from an evolutionary perspective.  Having said this, it is clear from this paper in Nature alone that H. erectus, the 'archaic' Homo sapiens species, Homo sapiens idaltu and modern humans are all distinct from one another. We have made it clear when we have discussed this find that Homo sapiens idaltu does possess a mosaic of modern and archaic features. We of course reject the evolutionary perspective and maintain that a mosaic of modern and archaic features doesn't demand an evolutionary conclusion, but can equally be explained by the work of a Creator. We do not feel that our interpretation reflects "special pleading" or a distortion of the scientific data.  Our interpretation is in line with the evidence. Rather, it is the view that all these hominids are modern humans that distorts the evidence at hand.
     
  • Also, you (perhaps conveniently) failed to respond to and acknowledge a key point in our argument. Namely, that the archeological evidence indicates that Homo sapiens idaltu behaved in very non-human ways. "The combined Upper Herto archaeological assemblages vary spatially in their lithological and typological contents.  The Levallois method is well represented across samples. Levallois and smallish Levallois flakes and points normally associated with the African MSA are present, as are Acheulean cleavers and other bifaces.  All these tool types are represented by examples found in situ in the hominid-bearing sand unit.  Similar assemblages are traditionally classified as final or 'transitional' Acheulean" (Nature 423 (2003), 747-752). This says it all.  Homo sapiens idaltu displayed behaviors that most closely resembled H. erectus.  The combined anatomical and archeological data indicate that these were non-human hominids distinct from modern humans.  As such, these finds fit nicely into our model. In spite of your claims, these finds do not represent any type of death knell for our creation model, our ministry or 'progressive creationism.'
     
  • In your reply you state that "There is a clear anatomical gradient, i.e. there are skulls ranging from 'archaic' to 'fully modern' and it is a smooth spectrum, with no sharp demarcation line.  The evolutionist sees this as evidence that they were all related, but in their view, in an evolutionary ladder of descent (with possibly some branching/bushiness).  We also see it as evidence that they are all related, but contemporaneous.  The smooth grading is to be expected, as the whole suite of variation simply expresses the built-in variability within humanity."

Are you saying that there is scientific evidence for human evolution unless one rejects scientific dating methods?  If you really believe this, no wonder you are so adamantly opposed to our model.  We don't see the data in these terms at all.  Rather, we see significant evidence that demarcates modern humans from the Homo hominids. (References to the scientific literature towards this end can be found in our Creation Update show notes.)

  • One last question: In your reply you state, "Finally, you would be familiar with the existence of the skulls of early Australian aboriginal people with some of these allegedly 'archaic' features, too, and we would not think that you would want to challenge their humanity."  I am unaware of this.  Could you please point me to the relevant scientific references?

Again, thank you for your response.  It saddens me deeply that you feel that our ministry is more dangerous than atheism.  While I understand that our difference run deep, I would hope that we could find some measure of unity in Christ.  However, I gather that you do not think this is ever possible.

Fazale (Fuz) Rana, Ph.D.
Vice President, Science Apologetics

June 26, 2003

At this point Dr. Wieland 'broke-off' the email exchange with me.