Scientists recently discovered the first ever piece of art that predates the evolution of our species. The engravings on a shell appear to have been made by Homo erectus - one of our ancestors - around half a million years ago.
However, whilst this find is helping scientists better understand our ancestors it has completely baffled creationists. They can't seem to reconcile the fact that a non-human species is doing something as "human" as art.
It's kicked their cognitive dissonance into overdrive with hilarious results. Here are my top 3 favourites.
1. "Calling Homo erectus 'human' is so wrong it's fradulant. Also, Homo erectus is human" - Institute for Creation Research
The main issue young-earth creationists have is that they believe in "kinds." These are the groups of animals that were created in Genesis. Kinds are are distinct and never change from one into another (so-called 'macroevolution'). In this case there's a human kind and an ape kind and never the twain shall meet.
Where to put Homo erectus when they're not human but doing human-y things?
Brian Thomas, from the Institute for Creation Research, reckons the solution is to just claim that Homo erectus was completely human and belongs in the human kind. That way they're allowed to make art.
In his article on the discovery, he notesBut the skill, artistry, and strength these ancients used on those shells betrays their true human nature . . . These man-altered shells again show that names like Homo neandertalensis or Homo erectus may cloud the clear conclusion that these ancients lived at the same time as, and looked and acted like, modern humans.
Which seems like a reasonable, rational response to this discovery. Right? Well perhaps, until you look at the "related articles" section of the page. This contains a link to the last timeBrian talked about Homo erectus.
In that article he was discussing a Homo erectus fossil from Georgia and arguing that it isn't human. In fact, the title of the post even implies that arguing it is "borders on fraud".
To prove his point he rattles off a bunch of traits that show how ape-like the fossil is.
[the skull] has a U-shape dental arch, not the more parabolic shape humans present. Its chin slopes back like an ape without the forward-jutting bottom point of a human chin. There is no human nose bridge, and it has prominent attachment points for enormous jaw and neck muscles . . . Maybe it "stands apart from" man because it was not a man. Could it actually be an ape's skull?
Except those are all the characteristics that help define Homo erectus; the very same Homo erectus he's now trying to argue "looked like" modern humans.
So it would seem Homo erectus jumps in and out of the human kind; depending on which answer would best suite the creationists this week.
Although perhaps the most hilarious bit is Brian Thomas' use of the Homo erectus called "Java man" to prove they weren't human.
Dutch physician Eugene Dubois, anxious to find proof of human evolution, uncovered the famous Java "man" fossils in 1891 . . . Some later suggested that his Java man skull cap was actually that of a gibbon
This makes me chuckle because he explicitly references Java man in his discussion of the new art and how Homo erectus was human. Apparently even the same fossil can change from being a gibbon to a human; depending on what's convenient for creationists.
2. "Scientists recognise design in art; why won't they recognise it when I want them to" - Uncommon Descent
Uncommen descent is a cdesign proponentists blog that recently covered the Homo erectus art. They were upset that the scientists were willing to see design in this piece of nature; but not in all the rest of it. They chalked this up to the ideology of the researchers.
Funny how people who claim there is no design in nature immediately abandon their principles when they see a design their ideology permits them to accept.
No, what's really funny is if you follow their logic to it's conclusion. Clearly they're trying to imply that if you applied the same standard used to identify design in the art to animals you'd also spot design.
So how did the researchers identify design in the art?Well, they compared the engravings on the shell to naturally produced marks on shells; along with marks created by other humans. Turns out they were most similar to the human-made marks. So applying that same standard to life - as Uncommon Descent wants - would require us to deliberately design some life and find some undesigned life; then compare it to the life that exists.
Have the good people over at Uncommon Descent taken any steps towards doing so? No, they're just trying to score points against people who disagree with them. When the science doesn't support them they resort to basically the debate version of name calling. "You don't believe me because of your ideology, not because I'm wrong"
I find that funny.
3. "Science doesn't know everything, so it's wrong" - Creation/Evolution headlines
This final one comes from Creation/Evolution headlines. It isn't a particularly funny one; instead offering an interesting insight into the creationist mindset.
They argue that because evolutionary researchers were surprised by this discovery evolution is wrong. Not that the art contradicts or disproves evolution. No, the fact they were surprised is enough to prove evolution wrong.
It's always funny to watch the evolutionists act surprised. Everything in evolutionary paleoanthropology is a surprise, because they are so wrong, they are not even wrong. "Surprised" is the new normal.
Never mind that some people already thought Homo erectus may have made art. Never mind that must research into human evolution confirms it. No, the simple fact that the scientists don't know everything is enough to show they're wrong.
And that is perhaps a key component of the creationist mindset. They aren't interested in the right answers, they just want answers. "I don't know" is an admittance of defeat to them; not a call to arms.
And I think that isn't funny. It's sad.
