What about the Bones of Prehistoric Man?

If we deny evolution, how do we deal with the bones of prehistoric humanlike creatures that paleontologists occasionally dig up? The fact that bones similar to human or ape bones exist does not prove that they belonged to humans or apes. Such bones may be the remains of creatures outside the ancestral line of either. They could point to extinct species of apelike or humanlike creatures with no kinship to humans at all. To claim that the bones of such creatures are stages in the process of evolution is an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion.

Scientists who are firmly entrenched in the evolutionary theory should be embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species that would demonstrate evolution conclusively. Charles Darwin himself was troubled by the absence of fossil evidence for evolution. He said, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of transitional species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Data is often interpreted to support the theory by using the assumptions of the theory as the starting point. The result is a tautology—a closed circle of logic without a solid premise: We know that evolution must be true because we have found the bones of evolving humans. We are convinced that these are the bones of evolving humans, because we know that evolution must be true. It just doesn’t work that way.

Unfortunately, the bones paleontologists dig up do not come with identifying labels already attached. As it is, the discoverers name them and give them histories that fit their theories. Dogmatic evolutionists insist that these bones show us stages in the evolution of humans. Dogmatic creationists might as easily insist that they point to some form of human or ape or the remains of an independent, extinct species. The truth is, no one knows what these bones are. All claims are guesses.

What about the Supernatural?

Many scientists believe so strongly in the power of science to determine all reality that for anything to exist outside nature is, for them, out of the question. Yet we have the inevitability of the supernatural staring us right in the face. We can conceive of but two possible concepts to account for origins, and both are supernatural. Either something is self-existent, or existence somehow occurred spontaneously from nothing. We do not think anyone seriously proposes that existence came into being out of nothing, therefore we will give that concept no more consideration. By purely natural standards, existence itself is impossible because any explanation for it is beyond comprehension. Yet somehow we are here, and things exist. Even though existence defies nature, science, and rational explanation, scientists steeped in naturalism find any admission of the supernatural unacceptable, so they simply ignore the question of ultimate origins. They accept the existence of matter without asking where it came from and divert attention to evolution to explain how matter became living creatures.

It is refreshing to find some highly respected scientists take issue with colleagues who make such exaggerated claims. One of the founding and guiding pioneers of NASA, Dr. Robert Jastrow wrote, “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.” The ruling elite of science, education, and media have largely smothered such healthy breaths of open-minded honesty. They have usurped the name of science to close the doors against all possibility of the supernatural.