Anthropologists disagree (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
- Anthropologists disagree about what the human family tree looks like. Every new discovery seems to give reason to redraw the tree, whereas we would expect the tree to become clearer as discoveries accumulate.
- Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 88.
It needs to be noted that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is not a good source of Creation Science material. They are notorious for bad scholarship. It is agreed that this is a bad argument, but because Talk Origins cannot seem to resist the temptation to make needless attacks against creationists, a couple of points need to be addressed. (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Pointing to the disagreements is a ruse to distract from the areas where there is agreement. There is no significant disagreement among professionals that modern humans evolved from an African australopithecine or that other hominids sometimes coexisted with the lineage that led to humans.
While it is agreed that there is no significant disagreement among evolutionists on these, Talk Origins use of the term "professionals" is a hidden Ad Hominem attack that implies that Creation Scientists are not professionals. Basically they are saying that only Evolutionists are professionals. That is nothing short of a personal attack on Creation Scientists.
4. Disagreements get resolved. This is an important feature of science never found in creationism. ...
This shows Talk Origins ignorance of Creation Science, as well as their inability to resist any opportunity to slam Creationists. Their attempt to separate Creation Science from science is based mainly on their equating of science to naturalism, and their statement that disagreements are not resolved in Creation Science is simply not true. Some times it is slow in coming due to the difficulty in adequately funding research, but it often does come. First of all, not every person who would be called a creationist is a Creation Scientist. The fact that a layman or theologian still holds to an out dated idea does not mean that Creation Scientists have not resolved it. Second, as often occurs in science, some times a lone wolf will stick to a pet theory long after it has discarded by other Creation Scientists. This occurs among evolutionists as well, but they simply are less vocal than their Creationist counterparts. In both cases a few present individual hold outs does not mean that the disagreement has not been resolved as far as the majority is concered.