Homo naledi disproves creationism

Homo naledi is an important new fossil from Africa that is a huge boon to our understanding of human evolution. It helps provide solid evidence for many hypotheses about our ancestors. Creationism has a lot of flaws. It’s kind of racist, deceptive, and sometimes downright ignorant.


Homo naledi is an important new fossil from Africa that is a huge boon to our understanding of human evolution. It helps provide solid evidence for many hypotheses about our ancestors.

Creationism has a lot of flaws. It’s kind of racist, deceptive, and sometimes downright ignorant. But at it’s core the main problem is that it just isn’t science. Science is the most reliable way we have to test ideas and figure out if they’re accurate. Without this tool, creationists can’t determine if one of their ideas is more accurate than another. Which is where Homo naledi comes in. Without any way to actually figure out which of their ideas about the fossil is right a creationist civil war has erupted on the subject.

And the results are hilarious.

The two basic sides are whether this find is just a human, or just an ape. After all, there’s no way it could be some transition between the two. Creation Ministries International espouses the most common view: that since Homo naledi is part of the Homo family; it’s just human and nothing special.

But why label the remains Homo naledi if there is so much indication that these may have been ordinary humans with some unique anatomical variations just as there are variations today between different people groups but all descended from the first two people created by God—Adam and Eve?

. . .

Indeed, H. naledi has been described as having features “similar to early Homo species including Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis . . . Scientists such as Wolpoff as far back as 2001 argued that these should really all be included under H. sapiens, human beings.

Of course; they’re not ignorant of the fact that this idea disagrees with some creationists. As such they’re careful to not close the door completely on the interpretation that it’s actually an ape; promising to re-evaluate their position at a later date. And by re-evaluate, I strongly suspect they just mean “copy whatever other creationists say.” Which is something the Institute for Creation Research has already done.

They also started out claiming that Homo naledi was just another human; writing.

Their human feet and skulls, plus ritualistic burial, show that Homo naledi—if this name stands the test of time—was likely just another human variety.

But 5 days later a little footnote was posted at the bottom of the page

Update: Upon closer examination, the skeletal remains given the name Homo naledi show a host of primate characteristics, and evolutionists have pointed out shortcomings with the ritualistic burial interpretation.

What’s particularly interesting is that there’s no citation for this new information. No specific evolutionary criticism of the ritual burial, or which primate traits convinced them. Which is a shame, because the timing coincides with the publication of an Answers in Genesis piece on the subject – after the ICRs initial post but before their update. This takes the opposite position, arguing that Homo naledi was actually just an ape. 

the extremely small braincase—assuming the composite reconstruction is accurate—and the sloped ape-like face, the jaw, the shoulder, the curved fingers and toes, the rib cage, and flared pelvis all are consistent with an australopithecine variant

Clearly, the creationist narrative is in disarray. Some can’t even agree that all the fossils found belong to the same species, let alone decide if it was ape or human. At the end of the day this is because all they have is a narrative; not science. If they problems they were finding with this fossil were real, surely they would all be arriving at the same conclusion? But they aren’t so they won’t.

This sort of disagreement undermines any scrap of credibility creationists might have left. As such, it can’t be allowed to continue. Over the next few weeks I suspect we’ll see creationists falling into lockstep as one narrative becomes dominant. After all, we’ve already seen the ICR do a complete 180 on the subject. But hopefully, dear reader, you’ll agree. By then the damage will have been done.

Related Articles

8 thoughts on “Homo naledi disproves creationism”

  1. Wyrd Smythe says:

    For me the key thing about creationism is that it requires believing in a lying trickster god who created a world in which science obviously works… except where it has to lie in order to fool us. Who’d want to follow a god like that?

    1. Adam Benton says:

      Except it isn’t lying, because the specifics of where it doesn’t work were in the bible duh

      1. Wyrd Smythe says:

        I must have missed the part where it talks about the light of distant galaxies NOT taking millions of years to get here!

        1. Adam Benton says:

          Oh it’s totally in there, you just have to throw in a few facts you pulled out your anus too

  2. Paul Braterman says:

    This is an old dilemma for creationists. Some discount Archaeopteryx as an intermediate type on the grounds that it’s just a bird with a tail; others on the grounds that it’s clearly just a reptile with feathers. And of course it was never shown to be (and now, indeed, has been shown not to be) on the direct ancestral line to any modern species, a fate that provides a good (or rather bad) excuse for ignoring it, and that may yet await H. naledi.

    If incoherence could kill creationism, it would have died more than a century ago.

  3. Ashley Haworth-roberts says:

    Please could you tell me what happened to my attempted comment just now. (It has disappeared into thin air.) It was about the continued obfuscation by YEC Dr Wile here in responding to Parsonsi (Wile silently censors anything I might write):
    http://www.evoanth.net/2015/10/05/homo-naledi-disproves-creationism/#comment-4842
    Wile claims “Since it is hard to determine whether or not these fossils all represent one species (the skulls especially seem to indicate the fossils might represent a mix),”… The scientists are clear that all the individuals are the same species – and Wile fails to specifically quote from the paper to back up his assertion.

    1. Adam Benton says:

      All the comments I’ve received from you are now published on the post; it seems your comment has vanished forever

  4. Ashley Haworth-roberts says:

    PS I see there’s an editor’s note that has been added under THIS. They are, or appear to be, perched on a rather narrow fence – which side will they eventually come down on (if any)?
    http://creation.com/apeman

Leave your filthy monkey comments here.

More in Pseudoscience and Creationism
Trillions of artifacts are REALLY a problem for creationists

For more than 2 million years the pinnacle of human technology was stone tools. During this period - known as the stone age - trillions of artifacts were made by our...

Close