Idaltu: Ethiopian Hominid No Threat to Origins Model
By Fazale (Fuz) Rana, Ph.D.
“The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated,” retorted Mark Twain when he learned that his obituary had been published in The New York Journal. Reasons To Believe (RTB) learned of its own “obituary,” written by a young-earth organization, on the day that Nature published reports of new hominid (bipedal primate) finds from Ethiopia.[1] Representatives from that organization first misconstrued (regrettably) the data reported in the two Nature papers describing the fossils and their geological and archeological contexts, respectively. Then they concluded that these newly discovered hominids represent “a severe blow to the beliefs of Hugh Ross” and should be “received with dismay by the ‘progressive creationist’ camp.” They also maintained that RTB will be “forced into some very torturous positions regarding ‘fossil men.’”[2] In brief, they asserted that the Ethiopian finds were modern humans and, therefore, that the discovery invalidates RTB’s biblical model for humanity’s origin and spread. But is this really the case? How does RTB’s model for human origins fare in light of these Ethiopian finds?
RTB Model for Human Origins
RTB’s biblically based model for humanity’s origin regards Adam and Eve as real, historical people—the first human beings. Accordingly, the model maintains that all of humanity descended from Adam and Eve, who were created recently (within the last 70,000 years or less) in God’s image through divine fiat. As such, humanity stands markedly distinct from all other creatures made by God. (For more details see The Genesis Question.[3])
If humans are made in God’s image as a result of His special creative activity, then what is the biblical perspective on prehuman hominids? RTB’s model views these creatures as separate species, distinct from anatomically and behaviorally modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens). These animals were created by God, and since that time they have gone extinct. Genesis 1 makes no specific allusion to the hominids, so it must be inferred that they were created along with other land mammals, most likely on Day 6.
The scientific data fit this view. Hominid fossils assigned to the genera Sahelanthropus, Orrion, Ardipitheus, Kenyanthropus, Australopithecus, and Paranthropus—all ape-like creatures—possessed limited intelligence, nonhuman bipedal capability, and may have used, in some limited cases, extremely crude tools. The hominids assigned to the genus Homo, such as Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis and “archaic” Homo sapiens walked upright, used crude and unsophisticated tools, possessed limited intelligence, and even displayed some emotional capacity. Yet they did not have a spiritual capacity and cannot be considered as humans made in God’s image. The distinction between Adam and Eve’s descendants (Homo sapiens sapiens, or anatomically and behaviorally “modern” humans) and the hominids in the fossil record is not just morphological, but also behavioral.
Paleoanthropologists have no undisputed indication from the archeological record that Neanderthals, or any other hominid, engaged in religious activity.[4] Other discernible aspects of their behavior seem nonhuman as well. Although the hominids in the genus Homo used tools, they were crude and qualitatively distinct from the sophisticated tools used by modern humans.[5]
The Ethiopian Finds
So what, then, did the Nature papers describe that delivers a “severe blow” to the RTB model? In short, nothing. The Ethiopian finds, unearthed and described by a team headed by UC Berkeley paleoanthropologist Tim White, consisted primarily of three fossilized crania, two adult and one juvenile. Through the use of a radiometric technique (argon-argon dating), the research team dated the fossil specimens between 160,000 and 154,000 years in age. The team interpreted the anatomy of the three crania to consist of a mosaic of “archaic” and “modern” features. Because of the age and anatomical characteristics, the researchers assigned the Ethiopian specimens to an intermediate position between the “archaic” Homo rhodesiensis and Homo sapiens sapiens, and classified them as a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu.[6] The paleoanthropologists were quite clear, however, that Homo sapiens idaltu was anatomically distinct from modern humans. Two recent studies by separate teams of paleoanthropologists affirm this conclusion. Both studies demonstrate that the “archaic” Homo sapiens that existed between about 500,000 and 100,000 years ago were morphologically (anatomically) distinct from modern humans, just like idaltu.[7]
The researchers also recovered stone artifacts in the same geological layers that held the fossilized crania. These “tools” lacked the sophistication of tools used by anatomically and behaviorally modern humans. Instead, these artifacts reflected the crude and primitive technology of Homo erectus and Neanderthals. Also, large mammal remains were discovered near the hominid fossils. Inspection of these mammal fossils indicated that they were hunted and butchered, presumably by idaltu. The researchers also reported that the idaltu crania evidenced modifications that suggested they were defleshed after death—behavior that reflects some level of intelligence, but not at a level exclusive to modern humans[8].
Homo sapiens idaltu and RTB’s model
Instead of forcing RTB into “some very torturous positions regarding ‘fossil men,’” Homo sapiens idaltu finds ready accommodation within RTB’s human-origins framework in ways the model predicts. From this standpoint, Homo sapiens idaltu, like H. erectus, Neanderthals, and other “archaic” Homo sapiens, was simply a primate—an animal that walked upright, possessed limited intelligence, and had some type of “culture,” but an animal nonetheless. All the data support this interpretation. Homo sapiens idaltu stands as anatomically and behaviorally distinct from modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), and dates older than Neanderthal.
The combination of “archaic” and “modern” characteristics possessed by idaltu poses no problems for RTB’s model. In some sense, all hominids have features that resemble modern humans. Homo sapiens idaltu is no exception. While White’s team interpreted the mosaic nature of these hominids to be an indicator of their transitional status, other explanations are equally plausible. It is not unusual for human designers to create objects and devices that are combinations of two or more distinct designs. Why wouldn’t a Creator do the same? Furthermore, evolutionists don’t always interpret mosaic organisms as transitional intermediates. The duckbill platypus stands as a case in point. This creature possesses a combination of mammalian and avian (bird-like) features. Yet, evolutionists do not propose that mammals evolved from birds with the duckbill platypus representing a transitional form between these two groups.
With respect to RTB’s model for humanity’s origin, the discovery of Homo sapiens idaltu causes little, if any, excitement. And any reports of RTB succumbing under the weight of this find “have been greatly exaggerated.”
References
[1] Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, “Ethiopian ‘Earliest Humans’ Find: A Severe Blow to the Beliefs of Hugh Ross and Similar ‘Progressive Creationist’ Compromise Views,” June 12, 2003, http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc2003/0612sapiens.asp.
[2] Wieland and Sarfati, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0612sapiens.asp.
[3] Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis, 2d exp. ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 107-15.
[4] Eric Delsen et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, 2d ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, 2000), 615-17.
[5] For a popular-level treatment of tool use by the hominids see Richard Klein and Edgar Blake’s The Dawn of Human Culture (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2002). For an academic treatment of this topic see Richard Klein’s The Human Career, 2d ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999).
[6] Tim D. White et al., “Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia,” Nature 423 (2003), 742-47; J. Desmond Clark et al., “Stratigraphic, Chronological and Behavioral Contexts of Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash Ethiopia,” Nature 423 (2003), 747-52.
[7] Daniel E. Lieberman et al., “The Evolution and Development of Cranial Form in Homo sapiens,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 99 (2002), 1134-39; Erik Trinkaus, “Neanderthal Faces Were Not Long; Modern Human Faces Are Short,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003) in press (PNAS Early Edition).
[8] Tim D. White et al.; J. Desmond Clark et al.
