Professional Documents
Culture Documents
45-Article Text-223-1-10-20160507 PDF
45-Article Text-223-1-10-20160507 PDF
Media Review
Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross. 2015. Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity.
Revised Edition. RTB Press, ISBN 978-1886653115, 469 pp., $25.
Reasons to Believe (RTB) is the leading progressive creationist geographically global), after which humanity globally dispersed
organization in the world, and they actively promote the concept from a location in the Middle East.
of “creation as science,” wherein they propose predictive models Not surprisingly, the original edition of the book concluded that
that they believe are consistent with the teachings of Scripture and the biblical and scientific evidence was most consistent with the
the scientific evidence. As progressive creationists, they believe “RTB model.” The new edition of the book approaches the update
that Genesis teaches an ancient universe and an old earth, the with a very unique style. Instead of just revising the entire book,
history of which was punctuated by creative acts of God. For they present the original edition essentially unaltered, followed by
living organisms, these creative acts are presumably at or near thirteen short chapters of new material that create a surprisingly
the level of individual species. For biblical and scientific reasons, frank and sometimes frustrating assessment and update of the
RTB specifically rejects evolution as a mechanism to account original book. Most surprising about this new material is their
for the origin of organismal diversity, especially for the origin of frequent admission, “We were wrong.” Admitting mistakes is
humanity. difficult under the best circumstances, and it seems especially
In the new edition of RTB’s book Who Was Adam? A Creation uncommon among public personalities. Without question, Rana
Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity, RTB scholars Fazale and Ross should be commended for their willingness to admit
Rana and Hugh Ross present an update of their human origins mistakes.
model presented in the first edition of the book published in 2005. The book also offers perspectives and thoughts about human
The original model proposed that the special creation of humans origins that are unfortunately uncommon among young-age
took place between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago and consisted creationists. For example, Ross and Rana attempt to account
of a variety of claims derived from their reading of Genesis and for extreme human longevity, as recorded in the genealogies of
other Bible passages. Among them: Genesis 5 and 11. Their discussion of life history research can
• God created Adam and Eve through direct intervention. be helpful to creationists of any variety. Likewise, they tackle
• Adam and Eve are the sole ancestors of all humans, living and the fascinating question of the origin of human disease, a subject
dead. which also has bearing on young-age creationist understandings.
• The female human lineage (as inferred from mitochondrial Many young-age creationists will also find interesting material in
DNA) should be older than the male human lineage (as inferred their discussion of “junk DNA” and genome functionality.
from the Y chromosome), because the male lineage experienced Despite these significant benefits of the new book, Who Was
a more recent genetic bottleneck at the Flood. Adam? displays a number of shortcomings, beyond just the
• God created humans at a special moment in history. authors’ preference for an ancient universe. These objections
• God created humans with similarities to animals. can be summarized briefly below and elaborated with further
• Because humans are made in the image of God, they will examples from the text.
display characteristics not found in any animals. • The RTB model in places seems superficial and nonspecific.
• Early humans experienced extreme longevity, which decreased For example, it predicts both similarity and difference between
after the Flood. humans and animals, but it does not specify what type or
• There was a “universal” Flood (universal to humanity, but not degree of similarity or difference we should expect. As a result,
©2016 The author. This article is open access and distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium as long as the original author and medium are credited.
Citation: Wood. 2016. Book review: Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity. Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B:
Life Sciences 6:50-58.
whether discussing similarity or difference, the authors always nagging over-generalizations: Rana and Ross claim that true
depict the model as explaining the data, even though it is never human artifacts will “differ fundamentally” from the stone tools
clear why. of non-human hominins (in their model, “non-human” is anything
• The authors seem to exaggerate the status of the science. A other than Homo sapiens sapiens). In the context of the chapter,
single research article disputing a claim is characterized as this seems to mean that non-humans do not make the variety of
a decisive refutation. After describing one or two minority tools, implements, and artifacts associated with anatomically
opinions among human evolution researchers, the authors modern humans. Nevertheless, there are still tribes alive today
describe it as a consensus. Given the material cited in the that make stone tools like Neandertals and other hominins. Thus,
endnotes, some of these descriptions can only be characterized when appropriate comparisons are made to equivalent modern
as rhetorical flourishes designed to portray the RTB model in human technologies, hominin technologies do not appear to be so
the best light. crude. In contrast, the authors seem to be content declaring their
• When confronted with some evidences that seem to contradict generalizations of “fundamental differences” consistent with the
their model, the authors resort to special pleading far too often. RTB model.
Instead of merely admitting that the model fits certain data Chapter six, “The Best Possible Time” seems especially odd
poorly and leaving a matter unresolved, the authors frequently and ill-suited to the argument being developed. This chapter,
attempt to cast aspersion on research that fits poorly with their presumably authored by Ross, constructs an argument from the
model. history of the universe and the Milky Way galaxy to argue that
• Even in the updated material, there remain significant God created humanity at “just the right” time. The argument
misunderstandings of the data and the evolutionary greatly resembles general arguments for fine-tuning of the
interpretations. These problems are most apparent when universe, but with an added historical dimension. While most
discussing the problems with the evolutionary explanation. At young-age creationists would appreciate structural arguments for
times, the authors even seem to contradict themselves. fine-tuning (e.g., the earth is just the right distance from the sun to
• Finally, the astute reader will notice a lack of original research. make the surface temperatures tolerable to life), they are unlikely
This book is a review and interpretation of other peoples’ to find agreement here. For example, we are repeatedly assured
research. Even in cases where they make proposals about that human life and civilization could not have begun any earlier
molecular relationships or demographic models that could in galactic history, but this seems to seriously limit the ability of
easily be tested, the reader gets no sense that the authors have the Creator. For example, the authors assert, “human civilization
any intention or interest in actually conducting their own could not have arrived, survived, and thrived on Earth any earlier
research. They seem content to remain passive observers. than it did” (p. 102). Really? Is our God incapable of providing
After introducing the human origins debate and their RTB a suitable human habitat at any time and in any place He desires?
model in the first three chapters, Rana and Ross survey a variety What happened to the God who protected Shadrach, Meshach,
of evidences over the next eleven chapters. The initial chapter and Abednego in the fiery furnace, or the Lord who walked on the
of this section, “It’s all in the genes,” presents an overview of stormy sea, or the God who prepared a great fish to save Jonah’s
mitochondrial “Eve” and Y-chromosome “Adam,” longstanding life?
models in molecular anthropology that trace the ancestors of Even if one accepted the arguments of chapter six, the reader
human mitochondrial genomes and Y chromosomes to single is still left with a strange discontinuity: Why should we affirm
sequence types that lived tens of thousands of years ago. The that God used the uninterrupted laws of physics to create the
RTB model claims that these ancestors were Noah and Eve. planet while still insisting that God intervened to create humans
Since the RTB model predicts that Adam and Eve lived 10,000 in a special, miraculous way? Why not merely accept God’s
to 100,000 years ago, the authors conclude that estimates that put activity through uninterrupted natural law to create the planet
mitochondrial Eve at 150,000 to 200,000 years ago are “likely too and us, or just affirm that God can create in any miraculous way
high” (p. 69). In the first of many instances of special pleading, He wants? Instead, the reader is left with an apologetic for the
Rana and Ross claim that “current methodology lacks the means timing of human creation that appears to be built on very dubious
to correct for the various complicating factors. However, when theological claims. Since the authors do not offer an update of
the complicating factors are qualitatively considered, it seems this chapter, the reader can only assume that they still stand by
reasonable to conclude that the date for humanity’s origin may this argument.
come in under 100,000 years.” The irony of this statement Chapter seven, “How the fountain of youth ran dry,” provides
becomes very apparent in the new chapter 17, “Better dates for a very good but abbreviated discussion of longevity research.
humanity’s genesis,” where they admit that they were wrong and The authors correctly recognize that senescence is influenced by
claim that humanity originated between 100,000 and 200,000 genetics, and they review the phenotypes of several longevity
years ago. It is unclear why the consensus date for mitochondrial gene mutations discovered in various animal models. While
Eve in 2005 was “likely too high,” while the exact same consensus these genes are undoubtedly important in developing a creationist
in 2015 is now acceptable. It appears that Rana and Ross just perspective on extreme longevity, they only hint at what might
changed their minds. be possible. The mutants they review extend lifespan by only
In chapter five, “Bones and stones,” the authors introduce 50%. Even if today’s longest-lived humans could extend their
their discussion of the fossil record, specifically focusing on the lifespan by 50%, they would still die at about 120-150 years old.
emergence of behaviors and artifacts that the authors consider While this could explain the longevity of the Israelite patriarchs
evidence of the Image of God. Here appears one of the more like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 150 years is still less than 20% of
apart from other hominins. much of this relies on absence of evidence, which, as the saying
The problems with the depiction are numerous. First and most goes, is not evidence of absence. The best we could conclude
glaring, they have selected only certain taxa and omitted others, is that Neandertals and erectines do not exhibit evidence of the
most obviously Neandertals. Second, since only averages are “advanced” behaviors associated with modern humans. Instead,
shown, we have no sense of the range of values, and hence the the authors want to be more emphatic and insist that the apparent
separation of H. sapiens sapiens from the other taxa is artificially differences between modern humans and Neandertals/erectines
inflated. are expected based on their model. Again, though, the reader is left
To the authors’ credit, they admit some of these mistakes in the to wonder just what similarities would or would not be consistent
updated material on pp. 356-358. They acknowledge that they with the RTB model. How much similarity is too much? How
should have shown at least Neandertals, but they insist that if the much is too little? We have only the authors’ qualitative―and
graph were fixed, there would be a distinct gap between Homo biased―judgment on the matter.
sapiens sapiens and all other hominins. Glaringly absent is the In chapter 13, the authors address the question of comparative
corrected graph, even though the data for such a graph are readily studies of human and chimpanzee genomes. After opening the
available. Matzke digitized the data in 2006, and it is freely chapter with an admirable review of the history of comparative
available from his website (http://phylo.wikidot.com/fun-with- studies between the human and chimpanzee genomes, the authors
hominin-cranial-capacity-through-time). A graph of 215 hominin then turn to questioning the similarities. Rana and Ross claim,
specimens, averaged by taxon, is shown in Figure 1. The gap “Studies that reveal a 99 percent genetic similarity between humans
they insist would be present is not evident, and the averages form and chimpanzees have stacked the deck in a way that guarantees a
a smooth curve with an R2 of 0.959. This willingness to describe high degree of likeness” (p. 216). A careful examination of their
hypothetical research without actually doing it exemplifies the argument reveals several errors by Rana and Ross.
authors’ resistance to engaging in first-hand, original research. First, they note a comparative clone mapping study by Fujiyama
The next two chapters cover Homo erectus and Neandertals, et al. (2002), which they describe as, “…the project team found
respectively. In both, the authors emphasize that these fossils are that about 15,000 of the 65,000 DNA fragments did not align with
not the remains of anything we could describe as “advanced.” any sequence in the Human Genome Database” (p. 216). The
Everything about them is significantly different from the advanced sequences they refer to were Bacterial Artificial Chromosome
culture and symbolic thinking of modern humans. Of course, (BAC) end sequences, a notoriously messy means of mapping